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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2025-0158169-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 01APR2024 and 02SEP2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “baseplate” (Page 3, lines 16 and Page 6, lines 15) should be two words because it is also used as two words in the disclosure (second line of Page 4, for example). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities. Suggested amendments for correction of each issue are indicated below as sub-bullets.
[claim 1] – “baseplate” (line 5) should be two words to match the use of “base plate” in lines 8 and 14 of claim 1.
“a base plate including the plurality of module areas in which the plurality of battery modules . . . “
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term "a plurality of battery modules" (line 3 and 4) lacks sufficient antecedent basis and thereby renders the claim indefinite. The term is used in both lines 3 and 4 and it is not clear if “a plurality of battery modules” of line 4 refers to “a plurality of battery modules” of line 3 or a different element.
The terms “the battery module” (lines 13-14 of claim 1) and “the module area of the base plate” (line 14 of claim 1) lack sufficient antecedent basis and thereby render the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the battery module” (lines 13-14 of claim 1) refers to “a plurality of battery modules” of line 3 or a different element. Moreover, it is also not clear if “the module area of the base plate” (line 14 of claim 1) refers to “a plurality of module areas” (line 5 of claim 1) or a different element.
In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the following amendment which is respectfully suggested for overcoming the indefiniteness issue: ". . . a pack case housing the plurality of battery modules . . . “ (line 4) and “a heat-conducting pad between the battery modules and the module areas of the base plate that phase changes . . . “ (lines 13-14).
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, including the aforesaid amendments suggested for correction, is such that “the plurality of battery modules” of line 4 refers to “a plurality of battery modules” of line 3, “the module areas of the base plate” (line 14 of claim 1) refers to “a plurality of module areas” (line 5 of claim 1), and “the battery modules” (lines 13-14 of claim 1) refers to “a plurality of battery modules” of line 3.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent on claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1 identified hereinabove.
Regarding Claim 10, terms “the module area” (lines 1-2 of claim 10) lack sufficient antecedent basis and thereby render the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the module area” (lines 1-2 of claim 10) refers to “a plurality of module areas” (line 5 of claim 1) or a different element.
In view of the foregoing, claim 10 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the following amendment which is respectfully suggested for overcoming the indefiniteness issue: ". . . the module areas include
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, including the aforesaid amendments suggested for correction, is such that “the module areas” (line 2-3 of claim 10) refers to “a plurality of module areas” (line 5 of claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US-20200388810-A1; “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a battery pack (see Fig. 6 of Wang below) comprising a plurality of battery modules (individual battery modules are shown in Fig. 4 of Wang below), a pack case housing a plurality of battery modules and including a baseplate including a plurality of module areas in which the plurality of battery modules are located, a sidewall extending vertically and coupled along the periphery of the baseplate to enclose the plurality of module areas, and a bulkhead coupled to the sidewall and compartmentalizes the base plate to form the plurality of module areas, wherein the bulkhead comprises a fastening part at lower end thereof that projects inwardly and engages each of the plurality of battery modules.
Fig. 4 of Wang illustrates a battery assembly 40 including an array of battery cells arranged in a stack which is then arranged in Fig. 6 of Wang in a battery pack.
Wang also teaches a heat-conducting pad between the battery module and the module area of the base plate (see Fig. 6 of Wang below); moreover, Wang teaches that the module area of the base plate phase changes – the blowing agent can then decompose to yield gaseous products that cause the char to swell at a predetermined temperature [0028], creating the separation space.
[AltContent: textbox (Baseplate)][AltContent: textbox (Battery Pack)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
733
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (40 – Battery Assembly
100 – Battery Can Top Casing
110 – Gasket
120 – Foam Layer (Intumescent Battery Pad)
130 – Thermal Interface Layer
140 – Cooling Plate
150 – Bottom Casing )][AltContent: textbox (Heat Conducting Pad)]
[AltContent: textbox (Bulkheads)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fastening Parts)]
[AltContent: textbox (Side Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Peripheral Part)]
[AltContent: textbox (Central Part)]
Fig. 6 of Wang, duplicated from Sheet 3 of 4 of Wang
PNG
media_image2.png
355
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2 – Battery Cell
4 – Battery Pad
6 – Battery Cell )]
Fig. 4 of Wang, duplicated from Sheet 1 of 4 of Wang
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches that the fastening part is formed in plurality by being spaced at predetermined distance along the lower end of the bulkhead (please refer to the annotated Fig. 6 of Wang below).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches that the foam is compressed [0050] between the battery and the baseplate ([0086] and please see Fig. 6 of Wang below); thus, the thickness of the foam is greater than or equal to the separation distance between the battery module and the base plate.
Wang also teaches that the intumescent battery pad can have a thickness of 1 to 5 mm [0054], which falls within the claimed range of 0.5 to 5.5 mm. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches a module area that includes a center part and a peripheral part, where the heat-conducting pad is located in the center part (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang below).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US-20200388810-A1; “Wang”) as evidenced by UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin (Netzsch; “UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin”).
Wang teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Wang teaches that the polyphosphate reacts with the carbon source (pentaerythritol) to form a matrix consisting of char [0028], including a blowing agent such as urea-formaldehyde resin in the heat-conducting pad [0030], which decomposes to yield gaseous products that cause the char to swell at a temperature of 280 to 350° C [0028]. Urea-formaldehyde resin is a polymer that vaporizes or sublimates at 100°C to 800°C because the decomposition temperature, as evidenced by UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin, is 260°C to 355°C, which falls within the claimed range of 100°C to 800°C. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Wang teaches additives can be added to the reactive composition. For example, the additive can comprise a filler (for example, alumina trihydrate, silica, talc, calcium carbonate, or clay), dyes, pigments (for example, titanium dioxide or iron oxide), antioxidants, antiozonants, UV stabilizers, conductive fillers, or conductive polymers [0046].
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches that the heat-conducting filler may be silica (silicon oxide – SiO2) [0046].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US-20200388810-A1; “Wang”) as evidenced by UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin (Netzsch; “UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin”), and further in view of Mathews (Fundamentals of Thermal Conductivity in the Epoxy Polymer Network, “Mathews”).
Wang in view of UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin teach the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches that the concentration of the binder in the intumescent material is 5 to 50 wt% [0033], which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 30% with respect to a total weight of the heat-conducting pad. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. Wang teaches that the binder may comprise an epoxy, which is a heat-conducting filler as evidenced by Mathews (last full paragraph of Page 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Wang (US-20200388810-A1; “Wang”) as evidenced by UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin (Netzsch; “UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin”) in view of Grenier (WO-2020047059-A1; “Grenier”) as evidenced by Gems & Minerals (“Wollastonite – Gems & Minerals”; “Gems & Minerals).
Wang as evidenced by UF: Urea-Formaldehyde Resin teach the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Wang teaches optional additives – fillers – for example, alumina trihydrate, silica, talc, calcium carbonate, or clay [0046].
Wang does not teach fillers that are acicular or fibrous.
Grenier teaches optional reinforcing fillers including Wollastonite [0101], which is an acicular mineral as evidenced by Wollastonite - Gems & Minerals (“Wollastonite – Gems & Minerals”, first full paragraph of Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Wang by incorporating the filler of Grenier to add to or substitute for the filler in the battery of Wang. Wang and Grenier each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Grenier provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art; Grenier teaches that the reinforcing filler assists in controlling expansion of the fire-protective composition prior to and during char formation so that the resultant char is hard and uniform [0101]; the char forms a porous carbon network that exhibits stability at high temperatures and provides for thermal insulation in order to prevent or at least inhibit for a prolonged period of time a thermal runaway of the battery or individual battery cells [0103].
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Wang (US-20200388810-A1; “Wang”) in view of Page (US-20150221914-A1; “Page”).
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wang teaches a fastening part that descends from the bulkhead as seen in the annotated Fig. 6 of Wang above.
Wang does not teach a specific height for the fastening part based on the lower end of the bulkhead.
Page teaches a lid 201 that includes an upwardly projecting lip 210 (a fastening part) that extends about the perimeter of lid 201 to provide a space above housing 200 when stacked, e.g., when another battery housing is stacked on top of housing 200. The space provided above housing 200 may have a height of approximate 4.0 mm, which falls within the claimed range of a height of 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm based on the lower end of the bulkhead for the fastening part. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Housing 200 may alternatively or additionally include a lip that projects downwardly from the bottom of housing 200 to provide a space below housing 200 when stacked, e.g., when housing 200 is stacked on top of another battery housing [0048]. Please refer to the figures below (Fig. 3 of Page).
[AltContent: textbox (Bulkhead)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fastening Part )]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
380
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Battery Module)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. 3 of Page, duplicated from Sheet 3 of 10 of Page
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Wang such that the fastening part is at a height of 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm based on the lower end of the bulkhead as taught by Page. Wang and Page each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. The only difference regarding the fastening part between Wang and Page is that Page specified the dimensions of the fastening part, whereas Wang is silent on the dimensions of the fastening part. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). This provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, as changing the dimensions of Wang to match Page and that of claim 1 would not cause a performance difference and is routine in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20160126535-A1 to Qiao Y. teaches gas-generation agents [0025] which can include polyurethane foaming and organic solvents having boiling points ranging from 60-250°C [0167] and causing a first material in the battery to change from a first shape or volume to a second shape or volume upon thermal loading to cause in-plane or out-of-plane cracks, or voids in the battery [0028]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights