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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1,2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki (US 2021/0280939), wherein JP Application #2020-037275 provides an effectively filed date of 3/4/20 in view of Dekeuster (WO 2015035021 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 1, 2 and 10, Shimazaki discloses a battery arrangement and a method of using the battery arrangement (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4). Shimazaki discloses a battery (BAT; battery case 12; [0031]) comprising a plurality of battery cells (11; [0031]) wherein each battery cell is provided with a releasable degassing opening (Each battery cell is provided with a gas discharge valve (not illustrated) – [0031]). Shimazaki further discloses a degassing device, comprising a degassing volume (see illustrated Fig. 2 below; the space between the plurality of battery cells 11 and inside the battery case 12) which is fluidically coupled to the releasable degassing opening (necessary “to discharge the gas in the battery cell to the outside, that is, the inside of the battery case 12” – [0031]) and a frame of the battery housing (12), in particular the case opening (12h; [0034]; Fig. 4), which corresponds to the coupling point of the battery arrangement, wherein the coupling point is an outlet point of the battery.
Shimazaki also discloses a battery arrangement for a motor vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein the degassing device comprises an exhaust gas duct (communication member 30; [0033]) arranged outside the battery which is fluidically coupled to the battery via a coupling point (case opening 12h; [0034]; Fig. 4) and which is configured to conduct gas flowing into the at least one exhaust gas duct via the coupling point can be conducted to an outlet opening (gas discharge unit 40, Fig. 2) of the at least one exhaust gas duct, which, opens into a motor vehicle region which is at least different from a region of an underbody of the motor vehicle which is arranged directly below the battery (Shimazaki Para 0031 – 0033, Fig. 1 – 2; as seen in Fig. 2, gas discharge unit 40 opens in a region above the BAT pack, so it is not a region of an underbody arranged directly below the battery).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Shimazaki discloses a degassing volume, there are not any specific structures disclosed in Shimazaki which lead the gas from the releasable degassing openings of the battery cells to the frame of the battery other than the interior of the battery housing (12) and the exterior of the battery cells (11).
Dekeuster pertains to battery modules in vehicles (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Shimazaki. Dekeuster discloses “[O]nce the gases released from the vent 312 of the battery cells 54 are pushed into the vent chamber 298, the vent chamber 298 and/or the vent guide 341 may act as a conduit to guide the pressurized gases away from sensitive components of the battery module 22 and out of the battery module 22.” [0208] Dekeuster discloses the vent chamber and/or vent guides lead to the battery module aperture 352 (Fig. 46) or 356 (Fig. 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery arrangement of Shimazaki with Dekeuster’s vent chamber and/or vent guides (both reading on the instantly claimed degassing duct) in order to guide the pressurized gases away from sensitive components of the battery module 22 and out of the battery module 22.” (Dekeuster, [0208]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Shimazaki in view of Dekeuster as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fujikawa US 3,877,991.
Regarding Claim 3, the complete discussion of Shimazaki as applied to claim 2 is incorporated
herein. However, it is silent about the limitations of claim 3.
Fujikawa discloses a motor vehicle with the outlet opening is arranged in a rear region of the motor vehicle (Fujikawa Fig. 1, Item 14). Fujikawa teaches in Fig. 3, an exhaust tube 14 connected to the multiple discharge tubes 22 (Fujikawa Col. 2, Ln 13 – 25) in an “L-shape” similar to that of communication member of Shimazaki.
Based on the above findings, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimazaki in view of Dekeuster with Fujikawa’s teachings for the benefit of the exhaust gas outlet to a safe location of the automobile/vehicle (Fujikawa, Col. 1, Ln 15-20).
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over by Shimazaki in view of Dekeuster as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Balke US 2023/0140500, wherein DE 102020001540 provides an effectively filed date of 3/9/20.
Regarding Claim 5, 7 and 14-16, the complete discussion of Shimazaki as applied to claim 2 is
incorporated herein. However, it is silent about the limitations of claims 5, 7, and 14-16.
Balke discloses a motor vehicle body having a support structure, which has a support structure component (ventilation channel formed by a plurality of structural components), wherein at least part of
the exhaust gas duct is provided by at least one part of the support structure (Claim 5) component (Balke Abstract). Balke teaches the structural components provided are respective cross members and
longitudinal members (side member Claim 15) or side sills (side sill Claim 16) (Balke Para 0005). Balke
also teaches the venting gas treatment device to deliberately reduce the temperature of the venting gas
or of particles carried along with (Balke Para 0008). Balke also teaches the venting gas introduced into
the respective side sill (side sill Claim 16) are then further conducted in the direction of the wheel arch
on the rear axle (rear axle subframe Claim 14, axle support Claim 7) of the motor vehicle (Balke Para
0030).
Based on the above findings, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the venting gas treatment device of Balke with the
battery degassing device by Shimazaki in order to deliberately reduce the temperature of the venting
gas or of particles carried along with (Balke Para 0008).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Shimazaki in view of Dekeuster as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Frey US 8,663,824.
Regarding Claim 8, the complete discussion of Shimazaki as applied to claim 2 is incorporated
herein. However, it is silent about the limitations of claim 8.
Frey teaches a motor vehicle where part of the exhaust gas duct is provided by at least part of
an underbody cladding of the motor vehicle in the region of an underbody of the motor vehicle (Frey
Fig. 8, Item 803 and 805, Col 7, Ln 44 - 56).
Based on the above findings, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the degassing device and exhaust of Shimazaki
with the battery degassing device of Frey in order to provide a clear pathway to an exhaust nozzle (Frey,
col. 7, lines 53-56).
Regarding Claim 9, the complete discussion of Shimazaki as applied to claim 2 is incorporated
herein. However, it is silent about the limitations of claim 9.
Frey discloses at least one exhaust pathway which, the interior of which is arranged through a
space between a cooling base of the battery for cooling the at least one battery cell (an air space 805
and 807 between the modules and battery pack) and an underride guard of the motor vehicle, wherein
the underride protection (Frey Fig. 3 and 4) is arranged below the cooling base in relation to a motor
vehicle vertical direction and the cooling base is arranged below the at least one battery cell (to ensure
that regardless of the location of a thermal runaway event, there is a clear pathway to an exhaust
nozzle) (Frey Col. 7, Para 2, Fig 8).
Based on the above findings, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the battery, degassing device of Shimazaki with the
battery and degassing device disclosed by Frey in order to provide a clear pathway to an exhaust nozzle
(Frey, col. 7, lines 53-56).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable by Shimazaki in view of Dekeuster, in view of Fujikawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in
view of Balke.
Regarding Claim 12, the complete discussion of Shimazaki as applied to claim 2, and of Fujikawa
as applied to claim 3, is incorporated herein. However, Shimazaki and Fujikawa are silent about the
limitations of claim 12.
Balke discloses a motor vehicle body having a support structure, which has a support structure
component (ventilation channel formed by a plurality of structural components), wherein at least part of
the exhaust gas duct is provided by at least one part of the support structure component (Balke
Abstract). Balke teaches the venting gas treatment device to deliberately reduce the temperature of the
venting gas or of particles carried along with (Balke Para 0008)
Based on the above findings, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the venting gas treatment device of Balke with the
battery degassing device by Shimazaki in order to deliberately reduce the temperature of the venting
gas or of particles carried along with (Balke Para 0008).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered, however due to Applicant’s amendments, please see new rejection grounds above, including Dekeuster.
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 NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752