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 .
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, 3-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kepler et al. (US 2017/0309878).
Regarding claim 1, Kepler et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a cell unit ([0025]) comprising: at least one pouch-type cell (ref 2); a unit case (ref 1) having an inner space ([0025]) in which the at least one pouch-type cell (ref 2) is accommodated; and a venting member (ref 5) disposed in the inner space ([0025]) of the unit case (ref 1), comprising a venting passage (refs 52, 53, [0033]) therein, and configured to discharge venting gas ([0033]) discharged from the at least one pouch-type cell (ref 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the unit case (ref 1) comprises a unit terminal (ref 4) electrically connected ([0028]) to an electrode lead (refs 21) of the at least one pouch-type cell (ref 2) accommodated in the inner space ([0025]) and exposed to outside ([0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) is formed in a plate shape (Fig 2) and faces adjacent (Fig 2) pouch-type cells (refs 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) is attached to an inner surface (Figs 3, 4) of the unit case (ref 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) comprises an inlet ([0030]) formed in a side surface facing ([0030]) the at least one pouch-type cell (refs 2) and an outlet ([0030]) formed in a side surface not facing ([0030]) the at least one pouch-type cell (refs 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) comprises an inlet formed ([0030]-[0034]) in a portion facing a terrace portion (Figs 3, 4, ends, [0030]-[0034], various locations for inlets disclosed) of the at least one pouch-type cell (refs 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) is configured such that a flow direction of a fluid introduced into an inlet ([0030], opening to through hole at bottom of ref 3) and a flow direction of a fluid flowing through the venting passage (at ref 53, Fig 2) are perpendicular to each other (Figs 2, 3, [0030]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) is configured such that a flow direction of a fluid flowing through ([0030]-[0034]) the venting passage (ref 52) and a flow direction of a fluid discharged (Figs 2, 3) to an outlet (at ref 51, [0030]-[0034]) are perpendicular to each other (Figs 2, 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the unit case (ref 1) comprises a venting hole ([0030]-[0034]) formed at a position corresponding to an outlet ([0030]-[0034]) of the venting member (ref 5).
Regarding claim 16, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cell unit ([0025]) further comprises a support member (ref 3) supporting inner surfaces (Figs 4, 5) of the unit case (ref 1) those face each other (Figs 4, 5).
Regarding claim 18, Kepler et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery pack ([0003]) comprising a plurality of cell units ([0025]) as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, Kepler et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery module ([0003], [0026]) comprising a plurality of cell units ([0025]) as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Kepler et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a vehicle ([0003], [0026]) comprising a plurality of cell units ([0025]) as set forth above.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler et al. (US 2017/0309878) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2016/0197386).
Regarding claim 2, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the unit case comprises a lower case formed by bending a plate-shaped member, and an upper case coupled to an open upper portion of the lower case.
Moon et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a battery unit (ref 100) including a cell stack (ref 110) located in a first cover member (ref 120) and a second cover member (ref 130). This configuration houses the cell stack, enhancing overall structural integrity of the battery unit ([0057]).
Moon et al. and Kepler et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the first and second cover structures disclosed by Moon et al. as the unit case of Kepler et al. to enhance overall structural integrity of the battery unit.
Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 2, which are directed to method of making said unit case (e.g. “formed by bending a plate-shaped member”) it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler et al. (US 2017/0309878) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0152941).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a plurality of the pouch-type cells (refs 2) are accommodated in the inner space ([0025]) of the unit case (ref 1), but does not disclose the venting member is disposed between the plurality of the pouch-type cells, wherein the venting member is disposed on each of both sides of the at least one pouch-type cell accommodated in the unit case.
Wynn et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery pack assembly (ref 300) including a plurality of battery cell structures (refs 401-409) that are housed in a battery cell pack assembly structure (Fig 4). Between the battery cell structures (refs 401-409) wall structures having venting capabilities are located (Fig 4, 5). This configuration enhances gas venting within the battery structure ([0002], [0024]).
Wynn et al. and Kepler et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the venting structure configuration disclosed by Wynn et al. into the structure of Kepler et al. with venting structures on each side of the pouch battery cells, to enhance gas venting and thus overall safety and performance of the battery.
Claims 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler et al. (US 2017/0309878) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-14, Kepler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the venting member (ref 5) comprises multiple inlets ([0030], …”the quantity and geometrical parameter of the through hole (inlet) may be designed according to different working condition”), including through holes / inlets formed in opposite side surfaces (depicted in Figs 1-4), and includes two or more unit passages ([0030], multiple in quantity disclosed) in an inner space ([0030]-[0034]).
While reference does not disclose two inlets corresponding to one of the at least one pouch-type cell, and an outlet formed between the two inlets, wherein the inlets formed in the opposite side surfaces are not disposed symmetrically to each other, and wherein the inlets formed in the opposite side surfaces communicate with unit passages different from each other, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the inlets and unit passages in the manner of the instant claims, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed arrangement would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, Kepler et al. discloses the “geometrical parameters” of the venting member may be “designed according to different working condition(s)” (see [0030]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the inlets and unit passages of Keplar et al. to accommodate desired performance for different configurations of end uses (or “working condition(s)”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler et al. (US 2017/0309878) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Buck et al. (US 2008/0090137).
Regarding claim 17, Keplar et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses two pouch-type cells (refs 2) are arranged in the inner surface of the unit case (ref 1) such that side surfaces provided with electrode leads (refs 21) face each other (Figs 2-5), but does not explicitly disclose the support member is disposed between the two pouch-type cells arranged such that the electrode leads face each other.
Buck et al. discloses in Figs 1-22, a battery pack (ref 10) including a battery module (ref 12) comprising a plurality of pouch battery cells (refs 14). In between each of the pouch battery cells (refs 14), a support structure (ref 32) is disposed which aids in heat transfer and supports overall structural integrity of the battery module ([0057]-[0058]).
Buck et al. and Kepler et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the support structure disclosed by Buck et al. between the pouch battery cells of Kepler et al. to enhance thermal properties and overall structural integrity of the battery unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2018/0047951) discloses in Figs 1-10, a battery pack (Abstract) including a battery module (ref 50) comprising a plurality of battery cartridges (refs 20) having a plurality of cells ([0049]). The structure has a distinct venting structure therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights