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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the abstract includes the phrase “are provided”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it is suggested that claim 1 be amended to recite “wherein each of the polymer/pouch cells of the plurality of polymer/pouch cells defines a region of preferential failure”.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, it is suggested that claims 6 and 8 be amended to recite “gas released from one of the polymer/pouch cells”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, claims 1, 6, and 8 recite “polymer/pouch cell” or “polymer/pouch cells”. It is unclear what structure is required by this limitation. For example, are the cells required to contain polymeric material, are they required to be pouch cells, or must they be pouch cells that contain polymeric material. For the purpose of examination, these claims are interpreted as requiring pouch cells, pending further clarification from applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 8, claims 1, 5, and 8 recite “desired direction”. It is unclear what is meant by the gas being directed in a “desired direction” and what is structurally required by this limitation. The term “desired” is not defined in the claim or in the instant specification and is a subjective term. For the purpose of examination, the gas being directed in a “desired direction” is interpreted as meaning the gas is directed in a direction, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fails to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation "internal space" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “internal space” is interpretated as “interior space”, as recited in claim 1, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claim 8 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite base and fails to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaben (US 2009/0253026 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gaben teaches a battery system (Gaben abstract) comprising:
an enclosure defining an interior space (vessel 17)
a plurality of pouch cells positions within the interior space (flexible sealed envelope 3, Gaben [34])
a support structure that defines regions for introduction of the pouch cells in a spaced orientation (structural body 9)
wherein each of the pouch cells define a region of preferential failure such that gas released from one of the pouch cells is directed in a direction (rupture zone 29, Gaben [73])
Regarding claim 2, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches the region of preferential failure including one or more venting scores (Gaben [75]).
Regarding claim 3, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches the region of preferential failure including at least one weakened seal area (Gaben [73-75]).
Regarding claim 4, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches the enclosure being sealed (Gaben [44]).
Regarding claim 5, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches a vent associated with a face of the enclosure (30, Gaben Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Gaben teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Gaben further teaches gas released from one of the pouch cells being directed towards the vent (Gaben [73]).
Regarding claim 7, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches the interior space of the enclosure defining a shared atmosphere region (Gaben [44]).
Regarding claim 8, Gaben teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above. Gaben further teaches the gas released from one of the pouch cells being toward the shared atmosphere region (when gas is released from rupture zone 29 it travels through the share atmosphere region until it reaches the valve 30, Gaben Fig. 10, [73]).
Regarding claim 9, Gaben teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Gaben further teaches the support structure being defined in part by a plurality of interleaved barrier structures (cross-members 12, Gaben Fi. 11, [41]).
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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, in view of Doyle (Doyle Shamrock Industries. Battery Flame Arrestor Vent Caps. Webpage available August 19, 2019).
Regarding claim 10, Gaben teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Gaben does not teach the vent being equipped with a flame arrestor.
However, Doyle teaches that it is known to include a flame arrestor in vent caps in order to prevent flames from entering a battery, thus improving safety and preventing ignition of released gas from a battery due to contact with flames (Doyle paragraphs 1-2).
Since Gaben teaches the release of gas from pouch cells and a vent in the battery system for releasing this gas and Doyle teaches that it is suitable to add a flame arrestor to a vent cap in order to prevent the entrance of flames into a battery, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a flame arrestor to the vent of Gaben in order to prevent ignition of gas released from the pouch cells due to contact with flames.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashimoto (US 2017/0331089 A1): appears to disclose a battery system comprising pouch cells including gas discharge portions, housing, and an exhaust port (abstract, Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights