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 Interpretation
Claim 12 recites “cooling heat” which is understood to mean the tube (which is previously recited in the claim) is for cooling of the heat generated by the battery cell.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “4 dL of cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium.” It’s recommended to change this to “4 dL of the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium.” to clarify it is the same medium recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “said cell” in line 3 and again in line 5. It’s recommended to change these to “said battery cell” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US 20100136391) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210367286), Griffin et al. (US 20220320697), Liu et al. (attached translation of CN 111790083A) and with or without Guo et al. (attached translation of CN 212085172U) hereinafter Guo II.
Regarding claim 1, Prilutsky et al. discloses a battery device as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prilutsky et al. discloses the battery device comprises a battery cell pack (battery pack 100) including a plurality of battery cells (batteries 101, cells 101, para. [0045]) a tube (conduit 107) disposed on the battery cell pack (Fig. 3) along a winding path (Fig. 2) such that each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is arranged adjacent to a portion of the tube (Fig. 2), wherein the tube includes a cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium (pars. [0008] and [0034]); and a housing (housing 105), in which the battery cell pack and the tube are arranged (Fig. 2); wherein, for each battery cell, a respective portion of the tube arranged adjacent to the battery cell comprises a material configured to rupture upon exposure to heat and/or a flame produced by thermal runaway of the battery cell (para. [0047]), and wherein the tube is pressurized by being filled with the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium (para. [0047]).
Insomuch as Prilutsky et al. does not expressly disclose said housing forms a sealed container; Guo et al. discloses a battery device, the device comprises a battery cell pack (Fig. 6) including a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 1) and a pipe (pipe 52) disposed on the battery cell pack along a winding path (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) such that each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is arranged adjacent to a portion of the pipe (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), wherein the pipe comprises a flexible and/or stretchable material (such as polypropylene, para. [0081]) and includes a cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium (“perform fire extinguishing on the battery cells 1”, para. [0090]) where a respective portion of the tube arranged adjacent to the battery cell comprises a material configured to rupture upon exposure to heat and/or a flame (para. [0065]) and Guo et al. further teaches a housing (housing 10), in which the battery cell pack and the pipe are arranged (Fig. 5) wherein said housing forms a sealed container (what is shown in Fig. 5 in addition to a top of the housing, para. [0085], will form a complete sealed container).
Further, Griffin et al. discloses a battery device with a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 12) and a tube (tube 14) for a cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium (exothermic reaction-suppressing agent, para. [0031]) and Griffin et al. discloses a housing wherein said housing forms a sealed container (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 show the cells are enclosed in the housing which may have seals such as edge seal 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein said housing forms a sealed container.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to enclose the battery cells to prevent dust and debris from entering.
Prilutsky et al. does not expressly disclose the tube comprises a flexible and/or stretchable material.
However, Liu et al. discloses a battery device with a battery pack (battery pack 1) and battery cells (battery cells 2) and having a rupturable tube (tube 6, page 8, lines 1-9) and Liu et al. further teaches the tube is made of a flexible material (page 8, lines 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube comprises a flexible and/or stretchable material and wherein the tube is pressurized by being filled with the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium (Liu et al., tube 6 and connected tube 17 are filled with fire extinguishing agent, page 11, lines 6-16) such that the flexible and/or stretchable material stretches (the tube of Liu et al. being under pressure, Liu et al., Abstract).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a flexible tube in order to assist in positioning and placement of the tube (Liu et al., page 8, lines 10-12) such as during manufacture.
Assuming, arguendo, that Prilutsky et al. does not disclose a tube; Guo II discloses a battery device with a battery pack having a plurality of cells (Fig. 1) and Guo II teaches a tube (fire extinguishing pipe 2 shown to be tubular, Fig. 1) where the tube ruptures to deliver the fluid (page 4, lines 23-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the conduit is in fact a tube.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the shape of the conduit as cylindrical tubing is a known cross-sectional shape for delivering extinguishing agent. See In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Prilutsky et al. discloses a gas container may be fluidly connected to the tube and configured to pressurize the tube (gas source 501, pars. [0038]-[0039]).
Further, Griffin et al. further teaches a gas container (container 44, para. [0046]) may be fluidly connected to the tube (Griffin et al., tube 14) and configured to pressurize the tube where the gas container is used to pressurize a liquid extinguishing agent (pars. [0044]-[0045], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein a gas container is fluidly connected to the tube and configured to pressurize the tube and a liquid extinguishing agent.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a gas container in order to ensure adequate pressure and flow of a liquid agent.
Regarding claim 3, Prilutsky et al. discloses wherein the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium comprises liquid (pars. [0008] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Prilutsky et al. does not expressly disclose the tube is sandwiched between the battery cell pack and a heat- and fire-resistant material.
However, Guo et al. further teaches the pipe (spray pipe 52) is sandwiched between the battery cell pack and a heat- and fire-resistant material (para. [0085], the spray pipe 52 is located above the battery cells, Fig. 5, and the mica sheet is placed on top of the spray pipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube is sandwiched between the battery cell pack and a heat- and fire-resistant material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a heat- and fire-resistant material to prevent damage to the housing (Guo et al., para. [0085]) and contain the fire.
Regarding claim 11, Prilutsky et al. appears to disclose wherein the tube is configured to discharge the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium through a ruptured portion towards said cell as the tube (conduit 107) is positioned directly over each cell (Fig. 2) and the rupture position is shown to open downward (Fig. 9) and the discharged cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium is configured to provide cooling for one or more cells which are neighbouring to said cell (“to prevent the initial thermal runaway event from propagating to neighboring cells”, para. [0006], “as well as stabilize the temperature of the nearby cells”, para. [0034]).
Assuming arguendo that Prilutsky et al. does not disclose the tube is configured to discharge the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium through a ruptured portion towards said cell; Guo et al. further teaches the pipe (spraying pipe 52) is configured to discharge the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium through a ruptured portion towards said cell (the pipe has a mica-like coat on the upper surfaces to ensure it ruptures from the bottom toward the cell, para. [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube is configured to discharge the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium through a ruptured portion towards said cell.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to direct the medium toward the cell for most effective fire mitigation.
Regarding claim 12, Prilutsky et al. discloses the battery device further comprises a cooling system configured to provide cooling to the battery cell pack (para. [0043]), and wherein the tube (conduit 107) is separated from the cooling system (para. [0043]) and dedicated for cooling heat, and/or extinguishing a flame, originating at the battery cell upon thermal runaway as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
416
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US 20100136391) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210367286), Griffin et al. (US 20220320697), Liu et al. (attached translation of CN 111790083A) and with or without Guo et al. (attached translation of CN 212085172U) hereinafter Guo II as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zhao (attached translation of CN 113117274A).
Regarding claim 4, Prilutsky et al. does not expressly disclose water.
However, Zhao teaches a battery device with a battery pack (Abstract) having a tube (spray pipe 10) which ruptures upon exposure to heat (break at a predetermined temperature, page 2, lines 30-32) and Zhao teaches that the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium comprises water (“when the spout ruptures, it forms a water spout”, page 8, line 15, page 9, lines 27-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium comprises water.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a known cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium for batteries as “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 6, Prilutsky et al. is silent as to the material of the tube.
However, Zhao teaches a battery device with a battery pack (Abstract) having a tube (spray pipe 10) which ruptures upon exposure to heat (break at a predetermined temperature, page 2, lines 30-32) and Zhao teaches that the tube is flexible (deformable) and comprises a plastic (page 11, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube comprises a plastic or a non-electrically conductive material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a known material for the tube of a battery extinguishing system as “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Prilutsky et al. is silent as to the material of the tube.
However, Zhao teaches a battery device with a battery pack (Abstract) having a tube (spray pipe 10) which ruptures upon exposure to heat (break at a predetermined temperature, page 2, lines 30-32) and Zhao teaches that the tube is flexible (deformable) and comprises aluminum (page 11, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube comprises aluminum.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a known material for the tube of a battery extinguishing system as “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, supra.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US 20100136391) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210367286), Griffin et al. (US 20220320697), Liu et al. (attached translation of CN 111790083A) and with or without Guo et al. (attached translation of CN 212085172U) hereinafter Guo II as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Capati et al. (US 20190077276).
Regarding claim 5, Prilutsky et al. is silent as to any amount of cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium, but Prilutsky et al. indicates the volume of the tube is not limited (“the number being dependent upon the length and inside diameter of conduit 107”, para. [0037]) and thus it would have been obvious to scale the tube size up or down and arrive at the claimed range in order to achieve the desired level of coolant delivery for a given battery cell type.
Further, Capati et al. discloses a battery device with a battery pack (para. [0003]) where cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium is delivered upon melting of material (para. [0003]) enclosing a flow channel (channel 235) and Capati et al. teaches the flow channel may hold between 1 and 20 dL (para. [0040]) which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the tube includes between 1 dL and 4 dL of cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Capati et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the volume of cooling and/or fire extinguishing medium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Prilutsky et al. with the volume recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US 20100136391) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210367286), Griffin et al. (US 20220320697), Liu et al. (attached translation of CN 111790083A) and with or without Guo et al. (attached translation of CN 212085172U) hereinafter Guo II as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Liang et al. (US 20220123430) and/or Kwag et al. (US 20190097203).
Regarding claim 9, Prilutsky et al. does not expressly disclose the tube is disposed on an electrically conductive layer arranged in contact with the battery cell pack to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells.
However, Kwag et al. discloses a battery device with a cell pack having a plurality of battery cells (cells 110) and Kwag et al. further teaches an electrically conductive layer (conductive plate 132) arranged in contact with the battery cell pack to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells (para. [0043]) and/or Liang et al. discloses a battery device with a cell pack having a plurality of battery cells (cells 20) and Liang et al. teaches a tube (fire-fighting pipeline 30) is disposed on an electrically conductive layer (disposed on bus component 12, Fig. 6, via transmission assembly 16, Fig. 8) arranged in contact with the battery cell pack to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein
the tube is disposed on an electrically conductive layer arranged in contact with the battery cell pack to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dispose the tube on an electrically conductive layer in order to provide fire protection for a battery having a bus component on an upper side of the cells.
Regarding claim 10, Prilutsky et al. does not disclose wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a plurality of openings.
However, Kwag et al. further teaches wherein the electrically conductive layer (plate 132) comprises a plurality of openings (Fig. 1) arranged over respective battery cells of the plurality of battery cells or Liang et al. further teaches wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a plurality of openings (openings for receiving terminals, Fig. 6) arranged over respective battery cells of the plurality of battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Prilutsky et al. wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a plurality of openings arranged over respective battery cells of the plurality of battery cells.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include holes in the electrically conductive layer in order to provide a seat for battery cell terminals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights