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 § 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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (WO 2022085681 A1) in view of Franke (DE 102021103378 B3).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata discloses a vehicle (vehicles, background) comprising: a frame (portion 11, fig.1); a battery pack (battery modules 13, fig.1) spaced apart from the frame, and the battery pack comprising a housing (battery modules 13 holding battery cells 14, fig.1); and a foamable layer (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17, fig.1) interposed between the frame and the battery pack and containing a foamable refractory material (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17, fig.1). Miyata fails to disclose a plurality of exhaust devices coupled to the housing.
However, Franke discloses a vehicle (vehicle part 18), battery housing (5) and a plurality of exhaust devices (degassing unit 8 with degassing elements 9 configured as a bursting membrane, paragraph [0022]) coupled to the housing, and a foamable material (17).
Miyata and Franke are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyata with the exhaust devices of Franke with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of managing the internal pressure and gasses generated during normal operation for better performance, safety, and system longevity.
Regarding claim 2, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable layer is in contact with the frame (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 in contact with the portion 11, fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable layer is spaced apart from the battery pack (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 spaced from the battery modules 13, fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable layer is in contact with the battery pack (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 in contact with the battery module 13, fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable layer is spaced apart from the frame (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 in contact with the battery module 13, fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable layer is in contact with each of the battery pack and the frame (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 in contact with portion 11 and battery modules 13, fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein an area of the foamable layer (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 has multiple different sizes as seen in figure 1) is the same as an area of a lead plate (lid portion 15 of battery modules 13, fig.1) of the battery pack (Miyata does not disclose the layer 17 being the same size as the lid portion 15, but it would be simple change in size and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as taught by In Gardner v. TEC Syst. and In re Rose, having the layer 17 be the same size as the lid portion 15 would allow for full coverage of the battery modules 13 for easier assembly and better safety).
Regarding claim 8, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein an area of the foamable layer is different (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 on the portion 11 is a different size than lid portion 15, fig.1) from an area of a lead plate (lid portion 15 of battery modules 13, fig.1) of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 9, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein an area of the foamable layer is less (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 on battery module 13 is a smaller than lid portion 15, fig.1) than an area of a lead plate (lid portion 15 of battery modules 13, fig.1) of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 10, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein an area of the foamable layer is greater (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 on the portion 11 is greater than lid portion 15, fig.1) than an area of a lead plate (lid portion 15 of battery modules 13, fig.1) of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 11, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable refractory material is configured to form a foamed layer (foamed layer is formed when heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 is expanded, fig.1) when a thermal runaway event occurs in the battery pack (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17), the foamed layer being an insulating carbonized layer (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17).
Regarding claim 12, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein the foamed layer is porous (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 are porous when they expand, fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Miyata in combination with Franke, Miyata discloses wherein a volume of the foamed layer is greater than a volume of the foamable layer (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17, fig.1).
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (WO 2022085681 A1) in view of Franke (DE 102021103378 B3) and Jang (KR 20230064565 A).
Regarding claim 14, Miyata discloses a vehicle (vehicles, background) comprising: a frame (portion 11, fig.1); a battery pack (battery modules 13, fig.1) spaced apart from the frame, and the battery pack comprising a housing (battery modules 13 holding battery cells 14, fig.1); and foamable structures (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17, fig.1) between the frame and the battery pack and containing a foamable refractory material (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17, fig.1). Miyata fails to disclose a plurality of exhaust devices coupled to the housing and a capsule containing the foamable material.
However, Jang discloses expandable member with a capsule containing expanding material (pouch-type capsule, expandable member 300 may include a synthetic member in which expanded polypropylene or liquid hydrocarbon is wrapped in a pellet (capsule) pouch, the expansion member 300 as described above, when heat is applied, the pouch-type capsule and the foam may expand, paragraph [0050]). Franke discloses a vehicle (vehicle part 18), battery housing (5) and a plurality of exhaust devices (degassing unit 8 with degassing elements 9 configured as a bursting membrane, paragraph [0022]) coupled to the housing, and a foamable material (17).
Miyata and Franke are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyata with the exhaust devices of Franke with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of managing the internal pressure and gasses generated during normal operation for better performance, safety, and system longevity.
Miyata and Jang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyata with the capsule enclosure for foaming/expanding materials of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of isolating the foaming/expanding material under normal conditions and automatically release them only when a specific temperature threshold is reached.
Regarding claim 15, Miyata in combination with Franke and Jang, Miyata discloses wherein each of the foamable structures overlaps a lead plate of the battery pack (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 overlaps the lid portion 15 of the battery modules 13, fig.1).
Regarding claim 16, Miyata in combination with Franke and Jang disclose wherein the capsule is configured to be damaged or decomposed when a thermal runaway event occurs in the battery pack (Jang, pouch-type capsule, expandable member 300 may include a synthetic member in which expanded polypropylene or liquid hydrocarbon is wrapped in a pellet (capsule) pouch act as expandable fire-extinguishing microcapsules and the capsule walls melt or rupture when exposed to heat to allow inner material to expand).
Regarding claim 17, Miyata in combination with Franke and Jang, Miyata discloses wherein the foamable material is configured to form a foamed layer when a thermal runaway event occurs in the battery pack (foamed layer is formed when heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 is expanded, fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Miyata in combination with Franke and Jang, Miyata discloses wherein each of the foamable structures is coupled to the frame (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 is coupled to the portion 11, fig.1).
Regarding claim 19, Miyata in combination with Franke and Jang, Miyata discloses wherein each of the foamable structures is coupled to the battery pack (heat-expandable insulating refractory material 17 is coupled to the battery modules 13, fig.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights