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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al. (US 20210074960), hereinafter Stude, in view of Fuchs et al. (CN 114447480), hereinafter Fuchs.
Regarding claim 1, Stude teaches:
A battery cell, comprising (Abstract):
an insulation layer (Abstract);
wherein a material damage temperature of each layer of the first insulation layer is T ([0005], [0093]),
a total thickness of the at least one layer of the first insulation layer is L1, satisfying T ≥ 400 ºC and L1 ≥ 30 μm ([0005], [0024], [0093]).
Stude fails to teach:
an outer shell;
an insulating component, covering at least a portion of an external surface of the outer shell;
wherein the insulating component comprises at least one layer of a first insulation layer,
Fuchs teaches:
A battery cell, comprising (Abstract):
an outer shell ([0029], individual cell housing 22);
an insulating component, covering at least a portion of an external surface of the outer shell ([0013], corresponding layer assembly 26);
wherein the insulating component comprises at least one layer of a first insulation layer ([0031], heat insulating layer 28).
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude to include the high-temperature-resistant insulating material and thickness taught by Fuchs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the thermal protection of the battery cell and reduce the likelihood than heat generated by the battery cell, including heat associated with thermal runaway, would damage the battery cell or adjacent components. Fuchs provides a known solution for improving the thermal resistance of battery insulation, and applying the known high-temperature-resistant insulation of Fuchs to the exterior insulating component of Stude would have been a predictable use of known prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude further teaches an insulating layer having a thickness selected for providing thermal and electrical protection of the battery cell ([0024]). Fuchs teaches that the thickness of a battery-cell insulating layer may be selected based on characteristics of the battery, including the amount of thermal energy that may be generated by the battery cell.
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the thickness of the first insulation layer of Stude according to the battery-cell capacity as taught by Fuchs, including selecting a thickness satisfying the equation of claim 2. Such a modification would have been a result-effective-variable optimization because the amount of insulation required to protect a battery cell is dependent upon the thermal energy generated by the cell, which in turn is related to the capacity of the battery cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the insulation thickness for higher-capacity battery cells to provide sufficient thermal protection and reduce the likelihood of thermal damage to the battery cell or adjacent components.
The claimed relationship represents a predictable optimization of the thickness of a known battery-insulation layer based on the capacity of the battery cell. Determining an appropriate thickness for a particular battery capacity would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art because both battery capacity and insulation thickness are known parameters affecting battery thermal protection.
Regarding claim 3, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude further teaches an insulating layer having a thickness and dimensions of the battery selected for providing thermal and electrical protection of the battery cell ([0024]). Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection. Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the thickness of the first insulation layer of Stude based on the thickness-direction dimension H of the battery-cell outer shell, as taught by Fuchs, including selecting a thickness satisfying the equation of claim 3.
The modification would have been a result-effective-variable optimization because the physical dimensions of a battery cell affect the amount of heat generated, retained, and transferred through the cell housing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a larger cell dimension would warrant a corresponding increase in thermal insulation thickness to maintain the desired degree of thermal protection. Selecting the claimed thickness relationship would therefore have been a predictable optimization of the thickness of the known insulation layer for the known dimensions of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 4, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude further teaches a total thickness of the at least one layer of the first insulation layer is L1, and L1 ≤ 200 μm, preferably, L1 ≤ 60 μm ([0024]). Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude further teaches a high-temperature-resistant insulating materials for battery cells, including a material damage temperature of each layer of the first insulation layer is T, where T ≥ 500 ºC ([0005], [0024], [0093]). Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a material with material damage temperature within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude, in view of Fuchs, and in further view of Hwang et al. (US 20170288181), hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 6, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Stude further teaches a material of the first insulation layer comprises at least one of polyimide, mica, aerogel, ceramic, and polytetrafluoroethylene ([0010], [0083-0084]). Stude specifically teaches polyimide, mica, and ceramic. Fuchs further teaches an aerogel ([0008]). Hwang further teaches polytetrafluoroethylene ([0037]).
Stude, Fuchs, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select one of the known high-temperature-resistant materials taught by Stude, Fuchs, or Hwang for the insulation layer of Stude. Such a modification would have been a simple substitution of one known insulating material for another known insulating material to obtain the predictable result of providing thermal and electrical insulation for the battery cell.
Regarding claim 10, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer, as discussed above. Hwang further teaches that an insulation layer for a battery cell may comprise polymeric materials including polyethylene terephthalate, liquid crystal polymer, polycarbonate, polyoxymethylene, and polyphenylene sulfide ([0037]).
Stude, Fuchs, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select one of the polymeric materials taught by Hwang for the second insulation layer of Stude. Such a modification would have been as simple substitution of one known polymeric insulating material for another to obtain predictable results, including moisture resistance, electrical insulation, mechanical durability, and thermal stability. The selection of a particular polymer would have been within the ordinary skill in the art based on the desired properties of the insulating component.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude, in view of Fuchs, and in further view of Kobayashi (JP 2011054945).
Regarding claim 7, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer ([0002], [0071]). Kobayashi teaches an insulation component comprising a first insulation and at least one second insulation layer with the first insulation layer, wherein the second insulation layer has a layer absorption rate than the first insulation layer ([0014-0020]).
Stude, Fuchs, and Kobayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude to include the second insulation layer of Kobayashi, with the second insulation layer having a lower water absorption rate than the first insulation layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide improved moisture resistance and prevent moisture from adversely affecting the electrical insulating properties of the battery-cell insulation. The modification would haven a predictable use of known insulating layers according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 8, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer ([0002], [0071]). Kobayashi teaches an insulation component comprising a first insulation and at least one second insulation layer with the first insulation layer, wherein the second insulation layer has a layer absorption rate than the first insulation layer ([0014-0020]).
Stude and Kobayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select a second insulation layer having a water absorption rate W1 of ≤ 0.5% for the insulating component of Stude, as modified by Kobayashi. Such a modification would have been motivated by the known benefit of reducing moisture absorption by the insulation and thereby maintaining the electrical and insulating performance of the battery cell under humid or wet environmental conditions. Selecting a particular water absorption value within a known range would have been a result-effective-variable optimization within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer ([0002], [0071]). Kobayashi teaches an insulation component comprising a first insulation and at least one second insulation layer with the first insulation layer, wherein the second insulation layer has a layer absorption rate than the first insulation layer ([0014-0020]).
Kobayashi teaches the second insulation layer of claim 7, as a thin insulating layer and teaches selecting the thickness of the layer to provide the desired moisture-barrier and insulating properties while minimizing the overall thickness of the insulating component.
Stude and Kobayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select a second insulation layer of Stude, as modified by Kobayashi, to have a thickness of each layer of the second insulation layer is L2, satisfying L2 ≤ 30 μm; preferably, L2 ≤ 25 μm. Such a modification would have been a result-effective-variable optimization of a known insulation-layer thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to minimize the thickness of the second insulation layer to reduce the size and material consumption of the insulating component while retaining the desired moisture-barrier and electrical-insulation properties.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude, in view of Fuchs.
Regarding claim 11, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer ([0002], [0071]). Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection, as stated above.
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange at least one layer of the first insulation layer between one layer of the second insulation layer and the outer shell, as taught by Fuchs. The modification would have been a predictable rearrangement of known insulation layers according to their established functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the respective layers according to their particular thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties to provide the desired degree of protection to the battery-cell outer shell.
Regarding claim 12, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs teach positioning of multiple insulation layers with respect to battery-cel housing, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude such that one layer of the first insulation layer is arranged between one layer of the second insulation layer and the outer shell. Such a modification would have been a simple rearrangement of known insulating layers to provide the desired combination of thermal protection, electrical insulation, and mechanical protection for the battery cell.
Regarding claim 13, Stude, Fuchs, and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above. Stude further teaches connecting respective insulation layers to one another using an adhesive ([0034]). Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude to connect the first insulation layer to the external surface of the outer shell through a first adhesive layer and/or connect the second insulation layer to the first insulation layer through a second adhesive layer. The use of an adhesive to secure an insulation layer to a battery housing or to another insulation layer would have been a predictable use of a known attachment technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use adhesive layers to securely maintain the insulation layers in their desired positions during battery assembly and operation.
Regarding claim 14, Stude, Fuchs, and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs teach positioning of multiple insulation layers with respect to battery-cel housing, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange the second insulation layer as the outermost layer of the insulating component of Stude. Such a modification would have been a predictable rearrangement of known layers and would have allowed the properties of the second insulation layer to be utilized at the exterior of the insulating component. For example, where the second insulation layer provide improved moisture resistance or environmental durability, positioning the layer on the outside would provide protection against moisture and environmental exposure.
Regarding claim 15, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection, as stated above.
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange at least one layer of the second insulation layer between one layer of the first insulation layer and the outer shell, as taught by Fuchs. The modification would have been a predictable rearrangement of known insulation layers according to their established functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the respective layers according to their particular thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties to provide the desired degree of protection to the battery-cell outer shell.
Regarding claim 16, Stude and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs teach positioning of multiple insulation layers with respect to battery-cel housing, as stated above. Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude such that one layer of the second insulation layer is arranged between one layer of the first insulation layer and the outer shell. Such a modification would have been a simple rearrangement of known insulating layers to provide the desired combination of thermal protection, electrical insulation, and mechanical protection for the battery cell.
Regarding claim 17, Stude, Fuchs, and Kobayashi teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Stude further teaches connecting respective insulation layers to one another using an adhesive ([0034]). Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the insulating component of Stude to connect the second insulation layer to the external surface of the outer shell through a first adhesive layer and/or connect the first insulation layer to the second insulation layer through a second adhesive layer. The use of an adhesive to secure an insulation layer to a battery housing or to another insulation layer would have been a predictable use of a known attachment technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use adhesive layers to securely maintain the insulation layers in their desired positions during battery assembly and operation.
Regarding claim 18, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches battery assemblies in which battery cells are contained within a box or housing (Fig. 1).
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to contain the battery cell of Stude within a box as taught by Fuchs. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of a known battery enclosure to protect the battery cell from mechanical and environmental damage and to facilitate incorporation of the battery cell into a larger battery assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 18, as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches a battery comprising multiple battery cells and insulating components arranged to provide thermal and electrical protection between battery cells (Abstract).
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the thickness of the first insulation layer of Stude, as informed by Fuchs, based on the voltage difference between adjacent battery cells, including selecting a thickness satisfying the equation of claim 19. Such a modification would have been a result-effective-variable optimization because the electrical potential difference between adjacent battery cells is a known parameter affecting the electrical insulation requirements between the cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the thickness of the insulating layer as the voltage difference increases to provide sufficient electrical isolation and reduce the possibility of electrical breakdown between adjacent cells.
Regarding claim 20, Stude and Fuchs teach the limitations of claim 1 , as stated above. Stude teaches a battery cell and insulating components comprising a stacked first and second insulation layer, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches an insulating layer positioned on the outer surface of the battery-cell housing for providing thermal protection, as stated above. Fuchs further teaches a battery comprising multiple battery cells and battery assemblies configured for incorporation into electrical devices, such as a motor vehicle (Abstract).
Stude and Fuchs are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery insulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the battery cell of Stude and Fuchs to provide electrical energy to an electrical device. Such a modification would have merely constituted use of the battery cell for its known and intended purpose of supplying electrical power to an electrical device. No modification beyond the ordinary use of the battery cell would have been required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights