DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 include “10(M)” but is not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (WO 2021235751 A1, “Ryu”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a battery pack (see title “battery pack”) comprising: a module assembly (see title “battery module”) comprising a plurality of battery modules arranged in a first direction (see [110] “battery pack” & “includes at least one battery module (200)” which reads on a plurality of battery modules); a vent channel located on a surface of the module assembly and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of battery modules (see FIG. 3 describes secondary battery “211” arranged in a first direction & see FIG. 5 describes “gas movement path 232t” which reads on vent channel & is on the surface & see FIG. 4 describes “H1” & FIG. 7 & see [72] “the connection unit (232) may be configured to be connected to the connection port (H1)” & see FIG. 3 reads on communicate with each of the plurality of battery modules); and at least one discharge delay member provided in the vent channel and configured to delay discharge of venting gas generated in at least one of the plurality of battery modules and introduced into the vent channel (see FIG. 14 describes “interference protrusions K”).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the at least one discharge delay member is a plurality of discharge delay members, and wherein the plurality of discharge delay members are arranged in the first direction (see FIG. 14 describes “interference protrusions K”).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery modules comprises an outlet configured to discharge the venting gas (see [88] “outlet (H2) formed to discharge gas externally”), and wherein the vent channel comprises a plurality of inlets, each of the plurality of inlets formed at a position corresponding to a respective outlet of the plurality of battery modules (see FIG. 7 describes “232b” reads on inlet & see FIG. 5 describes “232”; see FIG. 7 describes “232a” reads on outlet).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses an energy storage system (ESS) (see [3] energy storage batteries”).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses a vehicle (see title “vehicle” & “battery pack”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2021235751 A1, “Ryu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20110117401 A1, “Lee”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1, and further discloses in [88] “outlet (H2) may be perforated”, but Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one discharge delay member is configured to be melted by the venting gas.
Lee teaches a perforated vent (see [0042] “vent 13 may be formed to be easily perforated, so that the gas generated in the sealing body 11 can perforate the vent 13 in the event of excess pressure within the sealing body 11, the gas being emitted to the outside through the perforated vent 13”).
Ryu and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packs (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate perforated vent “13”, as suggested by Lee (see [0042]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so allows the gas to be emitted to the outside through the perforated vent (see [0042]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious that melting temperature is a property of the material.
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 4 and further discloses further comprising a passage lid configured to cover the respective outlet and one of the plurality of inlets (see [88] “226 top plate may have an outlet (H2) formed to discharge gas externally. The outlet (H2) may be perforated so that the interior and exterior of the module housing (22) are connected”). Ryu does not explicitly disclose and to be melted by the venting gas, however, melting temperature is a property of the material.
Lee teaches a perforated vent (see [0042] “vent 13 may be formed to be easily perforated, so that the gas generated in the sealing body 11 can perforate the vent 13 in the event of excess pressure within the sealing body 11, the gas being emitted to the outside through the perforated vent 13”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate perforated vent “13”, as suggested by Lee (see [0042]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so allows the gas to be emitted to the outside through the perforated vent (see [0042]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious that melting temperature is a property of the material.
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a space in the vent channel isolated from each other by the at least one delay member, and communicates with at least one of the plurality of battery modules (see FIG. 14 describes “interference protrusion K” & “gas movement (G)”; see FIG. 6 describes “230”). Ryu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of partition spaces.
Lee teaches in FIG. 5 & see [0061] “degassing ducts D for emitting gas”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate degassing ducts, as suggested by Lee (see FIG. 5 & [0061]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so allows gas to be emitted, as suggested by Lee (see [0061]).
Claims 7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2021235751 A1, “Ryu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu et al. (CN 113273026 A, “Wu”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery modules comprises: a cell assembly comprising a plurality of battery cells (see [118] “210: cell assembly” & see FIG. 3 describes “211: secondary battery” which reads on a plurality of battery cells), each of the plurality of battery cells comprising an electrode lead (see FIG. 3 describes “211b anode leads”); a module housing comprising at least one open side and configured to accommodate the cell assembly (see [64] “module housing (220)” & see FIG. 1 describes “220” & see FIG. 2 describes “220” has an opening to accommodate “210”); and a cover frame configured to cover the at least one open side of the module housing (see FIG. 4 describes “224 upper case” which reads on cover frame & covers the open side of the module housing). Ryu does not explicitly disclose a lead slit through which the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells passes.
Wu teaches slots (see abstract “plurality of slots are formed in each bus bar frame”; see [n0054] “multiple slots 330 can be formed on each bus frame 300 and bus 310. Electrode leads 111 protruding from both ends of multiple battery cells 110 can pass through multiple slots 330 to engage with busbars 310 formed on the outer surface of busbar frame 300”).
Ryu and Wu are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packs (see [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate slots, as suggested by Wu (see [n0054]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so allows the battery cells to engage with busbars, as suggested by Wu (see [n0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a pack cover facing the cover frame to cover one side of the module assembly.
Wu teaches end plate 400 (see FIG. 4 & see [n0055] “end plate 400 may be formed on the outside of terminal bus 320 relative to the length direction of the battery cell stack to form a bus frame 300” & “end plate 400 protects the bus frame 300 and various electronic components connected thereto from external impacts”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate end plate, as suggested by Wu (see FIG. 4 & [n0055]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so protects the electronic components from external impacts, as suggested by Wu (see [n0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 12 and further discloses further comprising a pack opening formed at at least one end of a space formed between the module assembly and the cover frame (see [88] “226 top plate may have an outlet (H2) formed to discharge gas externally. The outlet (H2) may be perforated so that the interior and exterior of the module housing (22) are connected”; see [86] “upper case (224) may have a gasket (224g) provided between the top plate (226) and the upper case (224). The gasket (224g may be configured to prevent gas leakage into the gap between the top plate (226) and the upper case (224)”; see FIG. 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2021235751 A1, “Ryu”) in view of Wu et al. (CN 113273026 A, “Wu”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20110117401 A1, “Lee”) and Shin et al. (WO 2021201443 A1, “Shin”, EP 4084191 A1 used herein for citation purposes). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover frame is configured to be melted by the venting gas to close the lead slit, however, melting temperature is a property of the material.
Lee teaches a perforated vent (see [0042] “vent 13 may be formed to be easily perforated, so that the gas generated in the sealing body 11 can perforate the vent 13 in the event of excess pressure within the sealing body 11, the gas being emitted to the outside through the perforated vent 13”).
Shin teaches in FIG. 3 “130” & in FIG. 4 describes “140 gas cutting structure” & see [0058] “a cutoff membrane 142” & “configured to open and close the duct 130”; see [0045] “120” is connected to the electrode lead. Shin teaches in [0055] “so as to prevent the flames from moving between adjacent battery cell module assemblies 110”.
Ryu and Shin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery fires & “battery module having a structure that can prevent flames from spreading when fire occurs in a battery module” (see Shin abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “a cutoff membrane 142” as suggested by Shin (see FIG. 4) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so “prevent[s] the flame moving battery cell module assemblies 110” as suggested by Shin (see [0055]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2021235751 A1, “Ryu”) in view of Wu et al. (CN 113273026 A, “Wu”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 112332032 A, “Wang”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 9, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the cover frame comprises: a first cover frame (see [88] “226 top plate”) and a second cover frame (see [86] “upper case (224) may have a gasket (224g) provided between the top plate (226) and the upper case (224)”). Ryu does not explicitly disclose configured to have a first melting point, nor configured to have a second melting point higher than the first melting point, however, melting point is a property of the material.
Wang teaches cover frame with material with higher melting point than the second cover frame (see FIG. 5c describes “40” & “30” & see [0066] describes “protective paper 40 is directly wrapped outside the insulating sleeve 30” & see [0065] “module electric connecting sheet 3 is usually made of aluminum, the melting point of the aluminum is 660 °C”; see [0067] describes “protective paper 40 is made of mica paper or other materials which can resist high temperature impact”). Wang teaches in [0066] “preventing the entire battery module from being easily short-circuited due to thermal runaway of the battery cell 21”. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first cover frame & a second cover frame with different melting points as suggested by Wang (see FIG. 5c & [0065], [0066], [0067]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so prevents thermal runaway, as suggested by Wang (see [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first melting point is a temperature lower than a temperature of the venting gas, and the second melting point is a temperature higher than the temperature of the venting gas, however, melting point temperature is a property of the material.
Wang teaches cover frame with material with higher melting point than the second cover frame (see FIG. 5c describes “40” & “30” & see [0066] describes “protective paper 40 is directly wrapped outside the insulating sleeve 30” & see [0065] “module electric connecting sheet 3 is usually made of aluminum, the melting point of the aluminum is 660 °C”; see [0067] describes “protective paper 40 is made of mica paper or other materials which can resist high temperature impact”). Wang teaches in [0066] “preventing the entire battery module from being easily short-circuited due to thermal runaway of the battery cell 21”. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first cover frame & a second cover frame with different melting points as suggested by Wang (see FIG. 5c & [0065], [0066], [0067]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so prevents thermal runaway, as suggested by Wang (see [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses the battery pack of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover frame is configured so that the first cover frame and the second cover frame overlap each other to be spaced apart from each other.
Wang teaches in FIG. 5c “40” & “30” & “3” & describes “40” & “3” are spaced apart by “30”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first cover frame & a second cover frame as suggested by Wang (see FIG. 5c & [0066]) into the battery pack of Ryu because doing so prevents thermal runaway, as suggested by Wang (see [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights