DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, “a base plate” is recited within line 3. It is unclear if this is a different base plate or the same base plate as the base plate disclosed within claim 1. Additionally, “the cell stack assembly” is recited within lines 4-5. It is unclear if this is the same cell stack assembly or a different cell stack assembly than the plurality of cell stack assemblies disclosed within claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (CN-108110176-A, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below) in view of Han et al. (US-20230216161-A1) and Lee et al. (KR-102024524-B1, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below).
As to claim 1, Ren discloses a battery pack (figure 2, mounting box 1), comprising:
a plurality of cell stack assemblies (figure 2, battery packs 2); and
a pack case housing the plurality of stack assemblies (figure 2, mounting box 1), wherein the pack case comprises:
a base plate including a plurality of cell stack areas where each cell stack assembly is located in each of the plurality of cell stack areas (figure 2, mounting box 1),
a sidewall extending vertically (figure 2, mounting box 1) and coupled along an edge of the base plate to enclose the plurality of cell stack areas (figure 2, mounting box 1), and
a bulkhead (figure 2, mounting box 1) coupled to the sidewall and compartmentalizes the base plate to form the plurality of cell stack areas (figure 2, mounting box 1).
However, Ren does not disclose wherein at least one among the sidewall and bulkhead includes a support part projecting inwardly at an inner lower part thereof to support each cell stack assembly or wherein the battery pack further comprises a heat-conducting pad between the base plate and the cell stack assembly that phase changes to a gaseous state at a high temperature to form a separation space.
Han discloses a battery pack assembly enclosing a cell stack, wherein at least one among the sidewall and bulkhead includes a support part projecting inwardly at an inner lower part thereof to support each cell stack assembly (figure 4, heat blocking member 1230, [0112]) to block heat from spreading between the stacked battery cells. However, Han does not disclose wherein the battery pack further comprises a heat-conducting pad between the base plate and the cell stack assembly that phase changes to a gaseous state at a high temperature to form a separation space.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the battery pack further comprises a heat-conducting pad (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40) between the base plate and the cell stack assembly (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40) to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0007]. It is appreciated that while Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pad undergoes a phase changes to a gaseous state at a high temperature to form a separation space, Lee discloses a heat dissipation pad constructed from a silicone resin (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40,[0038-0039]) which is one of the materials disclosed that can be used to construct the heat-conducting pad in the present application (page 13 line 24, page 14 lines 1-2). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
As such, 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 pack as disclosed within Ren to further include at least one among the sidewall and bulkhead includes a support part projecting inwardly at an inner lower part thereof to support each cell stack assembly to block heat from spreading to other battery cells as disclosed within Han and to further include a heat-conducting pad between the base plate and the cell stack assembly that phase changes to a gaseous state at a high temperature to form a separation space to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging as disclosed within Lee.
As to claim 2, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the support part is formed along the inner lower part of a sidewall or bulkhead to support an edge of a lower surface of the cell stack assembly.
Han discloses a battery pack assembly enclosing a cell stack, wherein the support part is formed along the inner lower part of a sidewall or bulkhead to support an edge of a lower surface of the cell stack assembly (figure 4, heat blocking member 1230, [0112]) to block heat from spreading between the stacked battery cells.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the support part is formed along the inner lower part of a sidewall or bulkhead to support an edge of a lower surface of the cell stack assembly to block heat from spreading between the stacked battery cells as disclosed within Han.
As to claim 3, modified Ren discloses the battery module as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the support part is a silicate member composed of silicates containing one or more elements selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), titanium (Ti), sodium (Na), potassium (K), fluorine (F), and oxygen (O).
Han discloses a battery pack assembly enclosing a cell stack, wherein the support part is a silicate member [0104-0106] which is comprised of silicon [0104-0106] so that the support member maintains its shape during thermal runaway of the battery cell.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the support member is a silicate member comprised of silicon so that the support member maintains its shape during thermal runaway of the battery cell as disclosed within Han.
As to claim 4, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conducting pad comprises a polymer that vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the heat-conducting pad comprises a polymer (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40,[0038-0039]) to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0007].It is appreciated that while Lee does not explicitly disclose that the polymer used for the heat-conducting pad vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC, Lee discloses a heat dissipation pad constructed from a silicone resin (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40,[0038-0039]) which is one of the materials disclosed that can be used to construct the pad in the present application (page 13 line 24, page 14 lines 1-2). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conducting pad comprises a polymer that vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging as disclosed within Lee.
As to claim 5, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conducting pad has a structure in which a heat-conducting filler is dispersed in a matrix including a polymer that vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the heat-conducting pad has a structure in which a heat-conducting filler [0039] is dispersed in a matrix including a polymer (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40,[0038-0039]) to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0007] with improved thermal conductivity [0047]. It is appreciated that while Lee does not explicitly disclose that the polymer used for the heat-conducting pad vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC, Lee discloses a heat dissipation pad constructed from a silicone resin (figure 2, heat dissipation pad 40,[0038-0039]) which is one of the materials disclosed that can be used to construct the pad in the present application (page 13 line 24, page 14 lines 1-2). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conducting pad has a structure in which a heat-conducting filler is dispersed in a matrix including a polymer that vaporizes or sublimates at 100 to 800ºC to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging with improved thermal conductivity as disclosed within Lee.
As to claim 6, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conductive pad comprises: a first layer in which a lower surface abuts a base plate, and a second layer disposed on the first layer and having an upper surface abutting the cell stack assembly.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the heat-conductive pad comprises: a first layer (figure 2, hard dissipation protrusion 30) in which a lower surface abuts a base plate (figure 2, hard dissipation protrusion 30), and a second layer (figure 2, soft dissipation protrusion 20) disposed on the first layer (figure 2, soft dissipation protrusion 20) and having an upper surface abutting the cell stack assembly (figure 2, soft dissipation protrusion 20) to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0071].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conductive pad comprises: a first layer in which a lower surface abuts a base plate, and a second layer disposed on the first layer and having an upper surface abutting the cell stack assembly to dissipate heat generated during charging as disclosed within Lee.
As to claim 7, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conducting pad has a content of heat-conducting filler in the first layer greater than a content of heat-conducting filler in the second layer.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the heat-conducting pad has a content of heat-conducting filler in the first layer greater ([0039], 80-89 wt%) than a content of heat-conducting filler in the second layer ([0053], 82-90 wt%) to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0071]. It is appreciated that there is an overlap in ranges for the total heat-conducting filler in the first layer and the second layer includes ranges such that there would be instances where the first layer would have a greater content of the total amount of heat-conducting filler within the heat-conducting pad when in comparison to the second layer. It is additionally appreciated that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conducting pad has a content of heat-conducting filler in the first layer greater than a content of heat-conducting filler in the second layer to dissipate heat generated during charging as disclosed within Lee.
As to claim 9, modified Ren discloses the battery pack as disclosed within claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conducting filler comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, zinc, magnesium, stainless steel, silver, alumina (Al2O3), silicon (SiO2), aluminum nitride (AiN3), carbon nanotubes, silicon carbide (SiC), graphite, and activated carbon.
Lee discloses a heat radiation package used within a battery pack, wherein the heat-conducting filler can be alumina or aluminum nitride [0044] to dissipate heat generated during charging and discharging [0007] with improved thermal conductivity [0047].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conducting filler can be alumina or aluminum nitride to dissipate heat generated during charging with improved thermal conductivity as disclosed within Lee.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (CN-108110176-A, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below) in view of Han et al. (US-20230216161-A1) and Lee et al. (KR-102024524-B1, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR-20200098778-A, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below).
As to claim 8, modified Ren discloses the battery module as disclosed within claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the heat-conducting filler is included in an amount of 1 wt.% to 30 wt.% with respect to a total weight of the heat-conducting pad.
Jung discloses a thermal pad for a battery package, wherein the thermal pad includes a heat conducting filler in an amount of 1 wt.% to 30 wt.% with respect to a total weight of the heat-conducting pad (page 5 lines 10-13, 20 grams of alumina which is 1.78% of the total weight being 1,122.2 grams) to improve the thermal conductivity of the heat-conducting pad (page 3 lines 38-41).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conducting filler is included in an amount of 1 wt.% to 30 wt.% with respect to a total weight of the heat-conducting pad to improve the thermal conductivity of the heat-conducting pad as disclosed within Hermann.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (CN-108110176-A, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below) in view of Han et al. (US-20230216161-A1) and Lee et al. (KR-102024524-B1, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR-20200098778-A, provided in IDS received on 3 April 2024, machine translation used for rejection below).
As to claim 10, modified Ren discloses the battery module as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the heat-conducting pad has a thickness equal to or greater than a separation distance between the cell stack assembly and the base plate [0044]. However, Ren does not disclose wherein the heat-conductive pad has an average thickness of 0.5 mm to 5.5 mm.
Jung discloses a thermal pad for a battery package, wherein the thermal pad has an average thickness of 0.5 mm to 5.5 mm (page 5 lines 15-16, 2mm). It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery pack as disclosed within Ren to additionally include wherein the heat-conductive pad has an average thickness of 0.5 mm to 5.5 mm as disclosed within Jung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights