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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “a flame-retardant material positioned directly above the lower layer, in which the flame-retardant material substantially cover the openings on the lower layer” (emphasis added). Since Applicant has amended Claim 1, this language should now read “…substantially cover the first set of lower layer openings in the lower layer” to increase clarity.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the layer of flame- retardant material has a mass…”. This limitation should read “wherein the flame-retardant material has a mass…” in order to increase clarity. This change removes an extra space in “flame- retardant” and removes “the layer” in order to match the previously provided antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the layer of flame-retardant material is a common layer extending across said first set of lower layer openings and second set of lower layer openings” (emphasis added). This limitation appears to be missing an article and should likely read “…across said first set of lower layer openings and said second set of lower layer openings” (emphasis added) to increase clarity. Similar language is found in the last two lines of the claim, and should also be corrected. Additionally, as laid out in regards to Claim 2 (above), “the layer of flame-retardant material” (line 3) should be changed to “the flame-retardant material” in order to match the antecedent basis provided in Claim 1.
Claim 34 recites, “wherein at least one set of the upright ridge…”. Based on the antecedent basis for this claim (see Claim 26), this limitation should read, “wherein at least one set of the upright ridges…” (emphasis added) in order to increase clarity.
Claim 39 recites, “wherein said upper layer openings and lower layer openings” (emphasis added). Since the amendment to Claim 1 changes the antecedent basis for “lower layer openings” this limitation should read “wherein said upper layer openings and said first set of lower layer openings” (emphasis added) to increase clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 39 and 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 recites, “wherein said upper layer openings and lower layer openings have an individual passage area for gas which is between 0.04 cm2 and 9 cm2 and a permeability greater than 50% (emphasis added). Here, it is unclear how openings can have “a permeability greater than 50%”, since the openings themselves are understood to be gaps within a structure. Additionally, although Applicant has indicated that support for this amendment is derived from [0063] of the instant specification (see Remarks filed 02/18/2026 at Pg. 15 of 24), the Examiner notes that this paragraph appears to only provide support for the upper layer and lower layer having a permeability of 51%, and does not appear to provide support for the upper layer openings and lower layer openings having a permeability greater than 50%. As such, Claim 39 is rejected as introducing new matter.
Claim 42 recites, “wherein the fire resistant seal prevents gas from escaping the container except through the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings”. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the container includes a cover plate, and the Examiner notes that the cover plate is intended to form passages with the lid which allow gas to escape the container (see Claim 36). Therefore, in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1, it appears that there is no longer sufficient support for a fire seal which “prevents gas from escaping the container except through the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings” as recited, since it is understood such a structure would necessarily accumulate gas between the lid and the cover plate. As such, Claim 42 is rejected as introducing new matter.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 13, 25-26, 29 and 34-42 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.
Claim 1 recites the following:
“a lid to close the internal storage space with a plurality of lid openings to permit airflow, wherein, in a state wherein the internal storage space is closed by the lid, the lid constitutes a top wall of the internal storage space, the lid having a lid body including:
a lower layer being part of the lid body and being positioned adjacent to the container’s internal storage space, wherein the lower layer includes a first set of lower layer openings that are at least adjacently present to ends of the lower layer;
a flame-retardant material positioned directly above the lower layer, in which the flame-retardant material substantially covers the openings on the lower layer;
an upper layer being a part of the lid body and being positioned directly above the flame-retardant material, in which the upper layer includes upper layer openings that spread across at least a portion of the upper layer; and
a cover plate positioned above the upper layer and the upper layer openings, wherein the plurality of openings is provided between the upper layer and the cover plate to increase airflow” (emphasis added).
Here, it is understood that the claimed “lid openings” include the “first set of lower layer openings” and the “upper layer openings”, since these openings are defined as being a part of the lid body. Therefore, it is unclear whether the later recitation of “the plurality of openings” (see emphasis added) is intended to refer to the combination of openings (i.e. “a plurality of lid openings”), or a particular set of openings (i.e. “a first set of lower layer openings” or “the upper layer openings”). Although the claim language closely resembles “a plurality of lid openings” (i.e. the combination of openings), the lower layer openings are not “provided between the upper layer and the cover plate”. Therefore, by process of elimination, it appears that “the plurality of openings” is intended to refer to “the upper layer openings”. However, it appears from Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 02/18/2026 at Pgs. 9-11 of 24), that Applicant is referring to a distinct set of openings located between the upper layer and the cover plate. Therefore, in light of Applicant’s arguments, it becomes further unclear whether the plurality of openings is intended to include passages 25 (see instant specification: [0070-0071]). Additionally, the Examiner notes that Claim 36 appears to use wording more closely associated in the instant specification with the passages that Applicant has argued (see instant specification: [0070-0071]), thereby further convoluting the intended interpretation of “the plurality of openings”. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2, 5-6, 8,1 3, 25-26, 29 and 34-42 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “the plurality of openings” is intended to refer to “the upper layer openings”, since the instant specification uses the term “opening” to refer to holes within a wall of the container [0010, 0017, 0020, 0025, 0032-0034, 0062, 0065], and since Claim 36 appears to claim the passage formed between the cover plate and the lid body, as supported by terminology found in the instant specification [0070-0071].
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the spacing of the new limitation regarding the cover plate appears to indicate that the cover plate is a portion of the lid body (i.e. “a cover plate” is indented under “a lid body, including:”). However, further dependent claims (e.g. Claim 35, 36, 40) reference the location of the cover plate in relation to the lid body. Therefore, it is unclear whether the cover plate is meant to be interpreted as a portion of the lid body, or whether the cover plate is a portion of the lid separate from the lid body. As such Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2, 5-6, 8,1 3, 25-26, 29 and 34-42 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the cover plate is a portion of the lid separate from the lid body, as supported by the instant specification [0032-0034, 0069-0070].
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the cover plate includes a truncated pyramid cover plate”. Here, it is unclear whether Applicant is intending to recite the cover plate of Claim 1 as having a truncated pyramid shape, or whether Applicant is intending to recite that the cover plate includes another, distinct, cover plate with a truncated pyramid shape. As such, Claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the first interpretation will be applied, and it will be interpreted that the cover plate is a truncated pyramid, as supported by the instant specification [0069].
Claim 39 recites, “wherein said upper layer openings and lower layer openings have an individual passage area for gas which is between 0.04 cm2 and 9 cm2 and a permeability greater than 50% (emphasis added). Here, it is unclear whether Applicant intended for the openings themselves to have a permeability greater than 50% (e.g. perhaps the openings are covered with a mesh or other porous structure which prevents airflow), or whether this permeability is intended to refer to the structure of the upper layer and lower layer. As such, Claim 39 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation should read “and a permeability of each of the upper layer and lower layer is greater than 50%” as supported by the instant specification [0063] and Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 02/18/2026 at Pg. 15 of 24).
Claim 42 recites, “wherein the fire resistant seal prevents gas from escaping the container except through the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings”. Here, it is unclear whether the recited structure is intended to prevent gas from escaping the entire container except through the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings (i.e. as recited), or whether this limitation is intended to limit gas from escaping from the internal storage space except through the lid (which includes, but is not limited to, the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings). A such, Claim 42 is rejected as being indefinite. The Examiner notes that the cover plate is intended to form passages with the lid body which allow gas to escape the container (e.g. see Claim 36). Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, the second interpretation will be applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 25, 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1; previously cited in Office Action mailed 12/01/2025).
Regarding Clam 1, Mast discloses a container (box; [0007, 0065]) for transport or storage of batteries [0007, 0064], the container having an internal storage space (area within inner box 144, Fig. 1; [0065]), the internal storage space having a volume (i.e. the internal storage space inherently has a volume), the container comprising:
walls (inner box 144, Fig. 1; [0065]) surrounding the internal storage space (see Fig. 1); and
a lid (see annotation of Fig. 1, below; [0065]) to close the internal storage space [0061, 0063, 0065-0067] with a plurality of lid openings (corresponds to the combination of openings in lid body as laid out in detail below) to permit airflow [0060-0062], wherein,
in a state wherein the internal storage space is closed by the lid, the lid constitutes a top wall of the internal storage space [0065-0067].
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mast Fig. 1.
Mast further discloses that the lid has a lid body, including:
a lower layer (lower screen 128, Fig. 1; [0065]) being part of the lid body and being positioned adjacent (interpreted as “not distant; nearby” as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to the container's internal storage space (see Fig. 1), wherein the lower layer includes a first set of lower layer openings that are at least adjacently present to ends of the lower layer (corresponds to a portion of the holes which are inherently present in a screen, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of “screen”);
a flame-retardant material (flame-arrestor 130, Fig. 1; [0060-0062, 0065]) positioned directly above the lower layer (see annotation of Fig. 1, above), in which the flame-retardant material substantially covers the openings on the lower layer (since the flame-arrestor covers the lower screen it inherently “substantially covers” the openings on the lower layer; see Fig. 1);
an upper layer (upper screen 132, Fig. 1) being part of the lid body and being positioned directly above the flame-retardant material (see annotation of Fig. 1, above), in which the upper layer includes upper layer openings (corresponds to the holes which are inherently present in a screen as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of “screen”) that spread across at least a portion of the upper layer; and
a cover plate (upper lid 134, Fig. 1) positioned above the upper layer and the upper laver openings, wherein the plurality of openings (interpreted as the upper layer openings, see 112(b) rejection, above) is provided between the upper layer and the cover plate.
The recitation of “to increase airflow” in the limitation “the plurality of openings is provided between the upper layer and the cover plate to increase airflow” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, Mast discloses an upper screen (132) directly adjacent to a cover plate (134). Both the upper screen and the cover plate include openings (i.e. the holes inherently present in the upper screen and the vent holes present in the cover plate; [0065]) which are used for venting [0060-0062]. Therefore, Mast discloses that structure necessary “to increase” airflow, and the intended use limitation is interpreted as being met.
Regarding Claim 5, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that the lower layer is a screen [0065[. A screen is understood to inherently comprise multiple openings as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, the openings adjacent to ends of the lower layer read on the claimed “first set of lower layer openings” of Claim 1, and openings in the middle of the screen read on “a second set of lower layer openings” as required by Claim 5. The second set of lower layer openings can be selected such that they are discontinuous (i.e. not connected) from the first set of lower layer openings. The flame-retardant material extends across the entire lower screen, and is understood to be “a common layer extending across said first set of lower layer openings and second set of lower layer openings” and to extend “over an area of said top wall”. Since “an area” can be broadly and reasonably interpreted as any area, here it is interpreted as an area of the lower layer which is comprised of at least 15% of the first set of lower layer openings and second set of lower layer openings.
Regarding Claim 25, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast further discloses that the lid body and the cover plate are jointly hingedly connected (i.e. via hinges 116; [0063, 0065]) to a base part (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 29, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that said walls comprise a bottom wall and side walls (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0062-0063, 0065]), wherein said side walls are made of steel [0061-0062].
Regarding Claim 42, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast further discloses a fire resistant seal (fire proof seal; 122, Fig. 1) [0061, 0064]. The first resistant seal is positioned along a perimeter of the upper layer (see Fig. 1). Mast discloses that the fire resistant seal (fire proof seal) is used to prevent combustion gases from leaking out around the lid during a battery fire [0061]. Therefore, it is understood that the fire resistant seal “prevents gas from escaping the container except through the upper layer openings and the lower layer openings” (see 112(b) rejection, above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2, 13, 38-39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 2, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that container is designed to prevent build-up of pressure in the event of a fire, reduce heat, and disperse gases [0060-0062]. The flame-retardant material (flame arrestor) is designed to prevent flames from exiting the container [0060-0061]. Mast also contemplates selecting container materials which can withstand fire and intense heat, while also making the container lightweight [0062, 0064].
Although Mast does not teach that the flame-retardant material has a mass that is at least 0.75 grams per liter of volume of the internal storage space and a porosity of at least 50% by volume, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the thickness and porosity of the flame-retardant material, including selecting a thickness/porosity that results in a density of at least 0.75 g/L of volume of the storage space, and a porosity of at least 50% by volume (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a density and porosity would result in a successful balance between a sufficiently thick / dense flame-retardant material which is capable of preventing flames from exiting the container, while ensuring a sufficiently thin / porous flame-retardant material such that gases are successfully vented and such that the container is as lightweight as possible.
Regarding Claims 13 and 41, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that the internal storage space has a single cavity (see Figs. 1 and 3) as required by Claims 13 and 41 which is designed to contain lithium batteries [0007, 0060-0062, 0064] as required by Claim 13.
Although Mast does not specifically disclose that the cavity has a volume of 10 liters or more, the cavity is understood to inherently have a volume, and the Examiner notes that a volume of 10 liters or more is within the scope of possible volumes of the cavity. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the cavity to have a volume of 10 liter or more as required by Claims 13 and 41 would result in a successful container capable of storing or transporting multiple lithium ion batteries (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 38, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Mast does not specifically teach that the cover plate or the lid body are made of steel, Mast discloses that steel is a material which can contain fire and intense heat, thereby establishing steel as a suitable material for the cover plate and lid body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the cover plate and the lid body of steel with a reasonable expectation that such a material selection would result in a successful cover plate and lid body capable of withstanding fire and intense heat in the event of thermal runaway (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 39, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that container is designed to prevent the build-up of pressure in the event of a fire, reduce heat, and disperse gases [0060-0062]. The container is designed to prevent flames and soot from exiting the box [0060-0061]. Mast also contemplates selecting container materials which can withstand fire and intense heat and prevent the box from exploding, while also making the container lightweight [0062, 0064].
Although Mast does not specifically teach that the one or more openings have an individual passage for gas which is between 0.04 cm2 and 9 cm2 or that the upper layer and lower layer each have a permeability greater than 50% (see 112(b) rejection, above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the size of the openings and the porosity of the upper layer and lower layer, including selecting the upper layer and lower layer openings to have an individual passage for gas within the claimed range, and selecting each of the upper layer and lower layer to have a permeability within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between ensuring sufficient mechanical strength of the upper and lower layers such that they can withstand fire and intense heat while taking into consideration Mast’s desire for a lightweight container, and a successful balance in porosity such that flames and soot are prevented from exiting the container while ensuring sufficient porosity that gases can be successfully vented MPEP 2144.05, II).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1), taken alone or in view of Leshin et al. (RU-126898-U1; see also attached English abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mast discloses that the cover plate (upper lid 134) has a substantially rectangular shape (see Figs. 1-3). Although Mast does not teach that the cover plate includes is a truncated pyramid (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above), the Examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that the truncated pyramid has “a very low height”. Therefore, absent showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected no difference in function between a cover plate having a substantially rectangular shape and a cover plate having the shape of a truncated pyramid with a very low height (since such very low height would indicate the shape of a truncated pyramid approaches that of a substantially rectangular prismatic shape), thereby rendering obvious the claimed shape.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that a truncated pyramid with a very low height provides distinct advantages over a rectangular shape, such a configuration would still have been obvious over the teachings of Leshin, who teaches that hinged boxes with a truncated quadrangular pyramid lid shape are known in the art (see Abstract; Fig. 1).
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 selected the cover plate to have a truncated pyramid shape with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful cover plate for use in a container. Such a change in shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since, absent showings of criticality, a change in shape normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Claim(s) 8, 26 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Zbiral et al. (DE-102012022346-A1; see also attached English translation) and in view of Stolzman et al. (US-5361928-A; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 8 and 35, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the lid body includes an upper screen (132, Fig. 1) which reads on the claimed “upper layer”, and which comprises upper layer openings (see rejection of Claim 1, above). A “screen” is understood, in light of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as including a perforated plate or a meshed wire. Mast does not teach that the lid body includes an upright ridge.
Zbiral teaches a battery housing which accommodates batteries and which is provided with a degassing opening [0007-0009]. The degassing opening is covered by a venting structure (see Fig. 11) which includes a protective body (51.2, Fig. 11) provided as either a metal sheet or a metal wire mesh [0070-0071]. The protective body of Zbiral corresponds to the screen of Mast. Zbiral teaches that the screen can include an inner rib (84, Fig. 11) positioned around some of the openings, and an outer rib (see annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14, below; [0071]). Additionally, the protective body includes a flange (see Figs. 11 and 14-15) which includes through holes (81 and 86, Figs. 11 and 14-15) which are used to facilitate connecting the protective body to other components of the venting structure and the battery housing [0071].
Stolzman teaches that providing concentric rings (26 and 27, Fig. 2) on the upper surface of a storage container can provide stiffening (Col. 2: lines 61-68).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an inner rib and an outer rib, and to have provided the upper screen with a flange to facilitate connection to the other components of the lid body, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in successful upper layer with increased stiffness capable of being successfully used in a venting structure of a container. Accordingly, modified Mast renders obvious that the lid body includes an upright ridge (corresponds to either the inner rib or the outer rib) which surrounds all of said upper layer openings in the lid (corresponds to the upper layer openings within either the inner rib or outer rib), wherein the upright ridge is a continuous ridge which completely surrounds all of said upper layer openings in the lid, and wherein an outer surface of the lid body (i.e. the flange) extends beyond the upright ridge and the outer surface is at a lower position than the upright ridge, as required by Claim 8.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that, absent showings of criticality, a change in shape normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Zbiral teaches that a mesh screen comprising upright ridges and a flange can be successfully applied to a venting structure in a battery housing, thereby establishing a reasonably expectation of success in adopting a similar design for the upper screen of Mast.
Furthermore, since Zbiral teaches that the upright ridges faces the carrier body (31.2, Fig. 11; [0071]; reads on cover plate) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the upright ridge on an upper side of the lid body which faces the cover plate, as required by Claim 35 with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful upper layer for use in the venting structure of a container.
Regarding Claim 26, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the lid body includes an upper screen (132, Fig. 1) which reads on the claimed “upper layer”, and which comprises upper layer openings (see rejection of Claim 1, above). A “screen” is understood, in light of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as including a perforated plate or a meshed wire. Mast does not teach that the lid body includes an upright ridge.
Zbiral teaches a battery housing which accommodates batteries and which is provided with a degassing opening [0007-0009]. The degassing opening is covered by a venting structure (see Fig. 11) which includes a protective body (51.2, Fig. 11) provided as either a metal sheet or a metal wire mesh [0070-0071]. The protective body of Zbiral corresponds to the screen of Mast. Zbiral teaches that the screen can include an inner rib (84, Fig. 11) positioned around some of the openings, and an outer rib (see annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14, below; [0071]).
Stolzman teaches that providing concentric rings (26 and 27, Fig. 2) on the upper surface of a storage container can provide stiffening (Col. 2: lines 61-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an inner rib and an outer rib around corresponding sets of upper layer openings (see annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14, below) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in successful upper screen with increased stiffness capable of being successfully used in the venting structure of a container. Accordingly, modified Mast renders obvious that the lid body has two sets of upright ridges (corresponds to inner rib and outer rib), in which each set of upright ridges at least partially encapsulates two different sets of upper layer openings on the lid body (corresponds to openings within the inner rib and openings between the outer rib and inner rib; see annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that, absent showings of criticality, a change in shape normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Zbiral teaches that a mesh screen comprising upright ridges be successfully applied to a venting structure in a battery housing, thereby establishing a reasonably expectation of success in adopting a similar design for the upper screen of Mast.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) in view of Zbiral et al. (DE-102012022346-A1; see also attached English translation) and in view of Stolzman et al. (US-5361928-A) as applied to Claim 26, above, and in further view of Wickland et al. (US-5727707-A; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 34, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the upper layer has an inner upright ridge and an outer upright ridge (see rejection of Claim 26, above) and that the lid body has edges (corresponds any of the outer edges which constitute a portion of the perimeter of the lid body). Although Mast does not specifically teach that “at least one set of the upright ridge is arranged at a distance of at least two centimeters from one or more of said edges”, Wickland teaches that containers for transporting hazardous materials can have various sizes (see Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 65-67; Col. 2, lines 13-28). The Examiner notes that the upper layer would necessarily be sized to match the size of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the container of Mast to have a size such that one of the upright ridges (corresponds to inner rib; see annotation of Zbiral Fig. 14, below) is arranged at a distance of at least two centimeters from one of the edges with a reasonable expectation that such a container size would result in a successful container capable of transporting lithium ion batteries.
PNG
media_image4.png
530
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mast Fig. 14.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Yasui et al. (US-20110200856-A1; previously cited) and in view of Ogami et al. (US-5866276-A).
Regarding Claim 36, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the container comprises a cover plate (upper lid 134, Fig. 1; see rejection of Claim 1, above). Mast does not disclose spacers attached to the cover plate.
Yasui teaches a battery module including a housing in which a plurality of battery cells are stored [0014]. The housing (50, Fig. 3) includes a lid body (20, Fig. 3) which forms a venting chamber (24, Fig. 4) for expelling gas [0056, 0060, 0067, 0072]. The lid body of Yasui corresponds to the cover plate of Mast. Yasui teaches that the lid body can include rib portions (28, Fig. 6) which face the housing [0080].
Ogami teaches that the addition of integrally formed ribs enhances the rigidity of a battery casing (Col. 2, lines 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the cover plate of Mast with ribs (corresponds to spacers) extending toward the lid body with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful cover plate. The ribs (spacers) of modified Mast are interpreted as extending in-line (i.e. “having parts or units arranged in a straight line”, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) toward the lid body.
Furthermore, in order to include ribs without interfering with the venting holes of the cover plate of Mast, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the ribs between the venting holes (see annotation of Mast Fig. 2, below). Accordingly, the cover plate possesses the structure necessary such that the ribs (spacers) would create a passage (i.e. any venting passage) between the lid body and the cover plate for smoke to exit the container and the lid body through the plurality of lid openings. The ribs (spacers) are attached to the cover plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
481
962
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mast Fig. 2.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Juzkow et al. (US-20210226189-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 37, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth, above. Mast discloses that the lower plate is a screen [0064]. A “screen” is understood, in light of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as including a perforated plate or a meshed wire. Mast does not teach that the lower layer is made from a perforated steel plate material.
Juzkow teaches that a perforated steel plate (i.e. porous steel plate) is a form of a high impact resistant metal plate [0019, 0040, 0057] which can be successfully used in a fire propagation prevention apparatus for a battery pack (Tables 1-3; [0007, 0029, 0040, 0057-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the lower layer of Mast to be formed of a perforated steel plate with a reasonable expectation that such a material selection would result in a successful lower layer with high impact resistance.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US-20170237054-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Zbiral et al. (DE-102012022346-A1; see also attached English translation).
Regarding Claim 40, Mast discloses all of the limitations as set forth, above. Mast discloses that the lid is designed such that combustion gases are forced out through the lid [0061]. Mast does not disclose that the cover plate is fixedly and permanently attached to the lid body.
Zbiral teaches a battery housing which accommodates batteries and which is provided with a degassing opening [0007-0009]. The degassing opening is covered by a venting structure (see Fig. 11) which includes a protective body and a cover body which are sealed together [0016, 0019]. Zbiral teaches that the structures can be joined together by gluing or welding, thereby achieving both sufficient tightness and a mechanically strong connection [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have glued or welded the cover plate to the lid body of Mast with a reasonable expectation that such a connection would result in a successful and strong connection, thereby ensuring gases do not leak and are directed out of the lid. A glued joint or a welded joint is interpreted as reading on a cover plate which is “fixedly and permanently attached to the lid body”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/18/2026 with regards to the rejections over Sugeno have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/8/2026
Prosecution Insights