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 § 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 7-8 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.
In claim 7, the limitation “a side wall of the battery cell” is indefinite because it is unclear which of the “plurality of adjacent battery cells” recited in claim 6 is being referred to.
Claim 8 is indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres Martinez (EP 3799179 A1) in view of Sasaoka (US 20140170468 A1) and Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Torres Martinez (EP 3799179 A1) teaches an electrochemical battery comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells (plurality of arranged battery cells) with a pressure regulating system, where the pressure regulating system includes deformable chambers 4 (body portion) between adjacent battery cells, a system of collectors 8 (pipeline) circulating a fluid to be supplied to the deformable chamber and passing through (formed in) the chambers (body portion), and a pressure regulator 10 arranged in the pipeline, and configured to regulate pressure in the pipeline and deformable chambers so as to modify a size of the deformable chambers to press the elements that make up the electrochemical cell (adjust a gap between adjacent battery cells) (Abstract, para 0020-0022, 0031, 0037-0043; Fig. 2).
Torres Martinez fails to explicitly teach a “gas” pipeline and that the pressure regulator is a “regulating valve”. However, Sasaoka (US 20140170468 A1), in the analogous art of batteries, teaches a gap member between unit cells may be supplied with a fluid to apply pressure that may be a gas or liquid, where the gas may be argon (para 0022,0027, 0038, 0100-0101; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fluid of Torres Martinez with a gaseous fluid, as described by Sasaoka, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1), in the analogous art of batteries, teaches controlling pressure in a cavity adjacent to the battery cells using fluid pressure adjusting means that may comprise a (regulating) valve (para 0026-0027, 0051, 0093, 0098, 0100-0101, 0105; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pressure regulator of Torres Martinez with a pressure control system, as described by Golubkov, including a valve (regulating valve) because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of controlling pressure. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the regulating valve may be connected to an external reservoir for the fluid/gas (configured to connect to a gas source device) and configured to increase the pressure of the fluid (pressure booster valve configured to increase the pressure in the gas pipeline when the valve is actuated) (Golubkov para 0040, 0050, 0105).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches an argon, helium, or nitrogen (inert) gas may be used as the gaseous fluid circulating in the gas pipeline (Sasaoka para 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the regulating valve may be configured to decrease the pressure in the pipeline/fluid springs when actuated in response to safety signals (pressure relief valve) (Golubkov para 0036-0037, 0074).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the deformable chambers 4 (body portion) comprise a pipe/conduit 8 passing/wound through the chambers and between a plurality of adjacent battery cells 3 along their long sides (Torres Martinez para 0036, 0038; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the pipe within the chambers 4 is wound on a long side wall of the battery cells 3, where the battery cells include long sides (first side wall) in contact with the deformable chambers 4 and short sides (second side wall) adjacent to the first side wall (Torres Martinez para 0036, 0038; Fig. 2), where an area of the first/long side wall is necessarily larger than an area of the second side wall due to the length being larger on the first side wall and the width being the same/shared for both side walls such that the battery cell is sealed. Alternatively, the first area is necessarily larger than the second area because the first length is larger and the “width” of the claimed “area” can be defined as an equal width because the claim allows for the areas to be subsections of the side walls. Because the chambers 4 with pipes of Torres Martinez pass along the long sides of each battery cell 3 (Fig. 2), a laying region of the pipe on the first side walls is symmetrically distributed.
Alternatively, Golubkov teaches the elastic fluid springs 30 (body portion) configured to exert pressure on the adjacent battery cells, where the body portion may include multiple cavities (36a, 36b, 36c) embedded therein that contain the fluid and may be separated from each other and are symmetrically distributed along the battery side walls/laying region (para 0088-0089, 0100-0101; Fig. 1A, 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the deformable chambers of Torres Martinez with fluid springs having multiple cavities, as described by Golubkov, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of adjusting pressure between battery cells. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the laying region of the pipe on the first side wall comprises a plurality of cavities (36a, 36b) (portions), and the plurality of portions of the laying region are located on two sides of a center line of the first side wall (Golubkov para 0088-0089, 0100-0101; Fig. 1A, 4).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the body portion includes a plurality of deformable chambers 4 that may be made of elastomeric material where the gas flowing through the chambers may be air (air cushions) arranged between adjacent battery cells 10 (Torres Martinez para 0048, Fig. 2; Sasaoka para 0101).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the pressure control mechanism may include a pressure sensor 14 in the conduit/pipeline 16 for signaling control of the pressure (Golubkov para 0090, 0098-0099; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov teaches the battery according to claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, Sasaoka teaches a battery module may be used in a laptop, cell phone, or vehicle (electric apparatus comprising the battery) (Sasaoka para 0002, 0103). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the battery module of Torres Martinez in view of Sasaoka and Golubkov in an electric device/apparatus application, as described by Sasaoka, in order to make use of the battery.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres Martinez (EP 3799179 A1) in view of Sasaoka (US 20140170468 A1) and Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bitsche (US 20090220850 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Torres Martinez, Sasaoka, and Golubkov fails to explicitly teach a weak layer provided on the body portion at a position corresponding to the gas pipeline and when broken the weak layer is used for inert gas to flow out. However, Bitsche (US 20090220850 A1), in the analogous art of batteries, teaches that weak points 13 may be provided in a housing 10 to allow gases to escape (at a position corresponding to the gas pipeline and when broken the weak layer is used for gas to flow out) in the case of overpressure in the housing and thus preventing explosion in the battery system (para 0031; Fig. 5-6). Additionally, Golubkov teaches a safety check sensor may be provided as part of the battery system to ensure that the pressure does not get too high in the fluid springs (body portion) (para 0074-0075, 0104). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include weak portions, as described by Bitsche, in the chamber/body portion of Torres Martinez in order to further ensure that the pressure in the chamber/body portion does not exceed acceptable levels and prevent explosion by releasing overpressurized inert gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights