DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boddakayala 2023/0277882 in view of Kim 2021/0074973.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Boddakayala teaches a rechargeable battery pack (24, paragraph [0046]) comprising: a plurality of unit cells (32) neighboring to each other (as shown in figure 2); a case (48) having an interior space accommodating the plurality of unit cells (interior space within 48 and base 50); and a fire-extinguishing agent spaced apart from the plurality of unit cells (device 54 spaced from 32 in figure 2) in the interior space of the case (32 within 48) and configured to generate a solid aerosol (paragraph [0070]) at a reference temperature (paragraph [0064]), wherein, when the interior space of the case has a known volume (volume within 48 is known when 48 is fabricated). However, Boddakayala does not teach that the weight of the fire extinguishing agent satisfies Equation 1: Y=0.0088X+0.211 wherein Y is a weight of the fire-extinguishing agent per volume of the interior space of the case (g/L), and X is a battery capacity (Wh) of one of the plurality of unit cells. Kim teaches that the amount of extinguishing agent required per unit area is determined by the capacity of battery cells used for energy storage (paragraph [0082]). Therefore, the mass of the fire extinguishing agent in a battery pack case is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the amount of extinguishing agent within the case of the battery pack will increase the number of battery cells or density of battery cells that can be extinguished in the event of a fire. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the mass of the fire extinguishing agent in a battery pack can be increased, was disclosed in the prior art by Kim, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a mass of fire extinguishing agent that satisfies the equation of Y=0.0088X+0.211 where the volume and battery capacity are static for the battery pack, in order to extinguish a fire in any of the battery cells if a fire occurs (paragraph [0082]) in the battery pack of Boddakayala. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 7, Boddakayala in view of Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Boddakayala in view of Kim does not teach that the volume of the interior space is 6.8 liters, which is the only value of Z possible for the equation of claim 2 and is positively recited in claim 7. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the relative size the of the battery pack of Boddakayala in view of Kim to have a case volume of 6.8 liters and the correspondingly increased relative size of the unit cells and fire-extinguishing agent, where the relative dimensions of the case, battery capacity, and weight of extinguishing agent does not perform differently than the structure taught by Boddakayala in view of Kim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Boddakayala in view of Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Boddakayala in view of Kim does not teach that the volume of the interior space is 10 liters, the weight of the fire-extinguishing agent is in a range of 1g to 32g. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the relative size the of the battery pack of Boddakayala in view of Kim to have a case volume of 10 liters and the correspondingly increased relative size of the unit cells and fire-extinguishing agent, where the relative dimensions of the case, battery capacity, and weight of extinguishing agent does not perform differently than the structure taught by Boddakayala in view of Kim. Further, Kim teaches using a fire extinguishing agent in the range of 0.12 g/cm3 to 0.82 g/cm3 within the sheet comprising the extinguishing agent (paragraph [0082]) in order to have enough extinguisher to stop a fire in any of the cells of the battery pack (paragraph [0082]). Therefore, the mass of the fire extinguishing agent in a battery pack case is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the amount of extinguishing agent within the case of the battery pack will increase the number of battery cells or density of battery cells that can be extinguished in the event of a fire. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the mass of the fire extinguishing agent in a battery pack can be increased, was disclosed in the prior art by Kim, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a mass of fire extinguishing agent of Boddakayala in view of Kim of 1 to 32 grams where the volume and battery capacity are static for the battery pack, in order to extinguish a fire in any of the battery cells if a fire occurs (paragraph [0082]). It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Dependent Claims 4-5, Boddakayala in view of Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Boddakayala in view of Kim does not teach that the distance between the fire extinguishing agent and the unit cells is between 2 and 32 mm. Kim teaches a distance between the fire extinguishing agent (150) and the plurality of unit cells (120) is in a range of 2 mm to 32 mm (distance from vent to battery cell to outer edge of extinguishing agent 150 in figure 7 is disclosed as 18 mm, paragraph [0065], such that the depth of 150 shown being significantly less than half of the distance of duct 141 will result in a distance between the range of 2 to 32 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the spacing between the extinguishing agent and unit cells of Kim for the pack of Boddakayala in view of Kim, in order to allow the extinguishing agent to effectively discharge to the battery cells (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Boddakayala in view of Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Boddakayala in view of Kim does not teach that the distance between the fire-extinguishing agent and unit cells is 20 mm. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the relative size the of the battery pack of Boddakayala in view of Kim to have a distance between the extinguishing agent and cells of 20 mm and the correspondingly increased relative size of the unit cells and fire-extinguishing agent, where the relative dimensions of the case, battery capacity, and weight of extinguishing agent does not perform differently than the structure taught by Boddakayala in view of Kim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Boddakayala in view Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches the solid aerosol generated by the fire-extinguishing agent comprises a potassium radical (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Boddakayala in view Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches the plurality of unit cells is located on a lower side of the interior space of the case (32 on bottom of pack as shown in figure 2), and wherein the fire-extinguishing agent is located on an upper side of the interior space of the case (device 54 is mounted within top portion of pack as shown in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Boddakayala in view Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches the fire-extinguishing agent is attached to an inner surface of the case (54 mounted to inner surface of 44 as shown in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Boddakayala in view Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches a battery management unit (52, for cells 32) connected to the plurality of unit cells (coupled to casing42 of cells 32 in figure 2) and the fire-extinguishing agent and arranged between the plurality of unit cells and the fire- extinguishing agent (thermistor 76 of 52 arranged between 58 and 32 in figure 2), wherein the battery management unit is configured to sense the temperature each of the plurality of unit cells (using thermistor 76) and, when a temperature of one of the plurality of unit cells exceeds the reference temperature, to heat the fire-extinguishing agent (activation device 82 heats extinguishing sheet 60 within 58 when controller 78 detects a temperature beyond a threshold, paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Boddakayala in view Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches the battery management unit further comprises a heater attached to the fire- extinguishing agent (activation device 82), and wherein the battery management unit is configured to heat the heater (paragraph [0064]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boddakayala in view of Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shiine JP2024152437 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Boddakayala in view of Kim teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Boddakayala further teaches that the agent comprises a potassium compound (paragraph [0068]). However, Boddakayala in view of Kim does not teach that the agent comprises mixing the potassium compound with a resin. Shiine teaches a fire extinguishing agent for a battery that includes a resin mixed with the extinguishing agent (page 6, paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the resin of Shiine as a binder for the potassium compound extinguishing agent of Boddakayala in view of Kim, in order to easily maintain the properties of the extinguishing agent (page 6, paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boddakayala in view of Kim and Shiine as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lee 2024/0088515.
Regarding Dependent Claims 10 and 11, Boddakayala in view of Kim and Shiine teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Boddakayala in view of Kim and Shiine does not teach a mesh supporting and penetrating the mixture. Lee teaches using a mesh (paragraph [0072]) as part of a fire extinguishing member (400) above a cell assembly (100), where the mesh will penetrate the mixture when the mixture decomposes to extinguish a fire (paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the mesh of Lee with the extinguishing agent mixture of Boddakayala in view of Kim and Shiine, in order to support and hold the extinguishing agent in a specific position (paragraph [0072]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights