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
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 has been amended to recite, “one or more battery cell”. The Examiner notes that this phrase contains a grammatical error, and “battery cell” should be amended to recite “battery cells” (emphasis added).
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 7-10 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 7 recites, “A high-voltage battery for a motor vehicle with one or more battery cell”. As noted in the Claim Objection (see above), this phrase should read “one or more battery cells”. However, regarding the later recitations of “the battery cell” (line 2, line 4, line 7), it is unclear whether the Applicant is intending to refer to a single battery cell of the “one or more battery cells”, or whether each of the later citations should read “the one or more battery cells”. The Examiner further notes that if the second interpretation is applied, the claims require further language to identify that each of the one or more battery cells include the claimed structure (e.g. “a cell housing”, “a hood”), since it is understood from Claim 1 that these structures are provided for each individual battery cell. As such, Claim 7 and dependent Claims 8-9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the first interpretation will be applied as supported by the current claim language.
Claim 7 further recites, “wherein the first and a second cell pole taps form a pair of cell pole taps and includes exactly one hood over the releasable degassing opening” (last two lines, emphasis added). Although “the first” is understood to refer to the previously recited first cell pole tap (line 4), it is unclear whether the limitation “a second” is intended to refer to the previously recited “a second cell pole tap”, or whether this limitation is intended to introduce a new, distinct cell pole tap. The interpretation of this claim is further complicated by the lack of clarity previously noted (see above) regarding whether a single or multiple battery cells are claimed. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation refers to the previously recited second cell pole tap.
Additionally, it is unclear which structure “includes exactly one hood”. Although the phrasing appears to indicate that the pair of cell pole taps “includes exactly one hood”, the instant specification indicates that battery cell comprises the hood (instant specification: Pg. 6, last paragraph; Pg. 12, first paragraph). Therefore, in light of the instant specification, the claimed structural relationship of the pair of cell pole taps and the hood is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the battery cell includes the hood. For the above reasons, Claim 7 and dependent Claims 8-9 are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “wherein the high-voltage battery comprises a first cell row with multiple first battery cells and a second cell row with multiple second battery cells” (emphasis added). There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “first battery cells” or the limitation “second battery cells”, and it is unclear which battery cells are referenced. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “first battery cells” and/or the “second battery cells” are intended to include the previously recited “one or more battery cells” of Claim 7 or whether these battery cells are distinct/different from the previously recited “one or more battery cells”. It is further unclear whether the “first battery cells” are intended to be the same or different from the claimed “second battery cells”. As such, Claim 8 and dependent Claim 9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “multiple first battery cells battery cells” and “multiple second battery cells” refer to multiple of “the one or more battery cell” recited in Claim 7, and that the first battery cells are the same as the second battery cells, as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 5).
Additionally, Claim 8 compounds the previous clarity issues noted with Claim 7. Since Claim 7 only provides antecedent basis for the structure of a single battery cell, it does not appear that Applicant has appropriate antecedent basis for the limitations “the first housing sides of the first battery cells” or “the first housing sides of the second battery cells”. Moreover, the limitation “the first and second pole taps” and “the releasable degassing opening” appear directed towards a particular battery cell, and it is unclear which battery cell is referenced. As such, Claim 8 and dependent Claim 9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that each of “multiple first battery cells” and “multiple second battery cells” has the structure of “the battery cell” as recited in Claim 7.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the first and the second cell pole taps forms a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood over the releasable degassing opening” (last three lines, emphasis added). This phrase appears to be missing a coordinating conjunction. Based on the similar amendment made to Claim 7, the underlined portion should read “forms a pair of cell pole taps and includes exactly one hood”. However, as described in the similar rejection of Claim 7 (see above), this phrasing appears to indicate that the pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood, while the instant specification indicates that the battery cell includes the hood instant specification: Pg. 6, last paragraph; Pg. 12, first paragraph). Therefore, in light of the instant specification, the claimed structural relationship of the pair of cell pole taps and the hood is unclear. As such, Claim 10 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the battery cell includes the hood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 each recite “wherein the hood is designed to divert a gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening, with respect to the first direction, away from the first and second cell pole taps”. Since Claim 1 (from which Claims 17-20 each depend) already recites this limitation (see Claim 1: lines 8-11), these claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 5, 11, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US-20190379011-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a battery cell [0002, 0004]. Examiner notes that the preamble statement of a battery cell “for a high-voltage battery for a motor vehicle” recites the purpose or intended use of the battery cell, and does not further limit the structure of the battery cell. Therefore, the preamble statement “for a high-voltage battery for a motor vehicle” is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Park discloses that the battery cell comprises (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below):
a cell housing (combination of case 110 and cap plate 115, Fig. 2; [0041]) with a first housing side (cap plate 115),
wherein, in the first housing side (cap plate 115), a releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) is arranged [0041], and
wherein the battery cell includes a first and a second cell pole tap (electrode terminals 130) which are arranged on the first housing side [0080, 0082],
wherein the second cell pole tap is arranged in a defined first direction between the first cell pole tap and the releasable degassing opening [0089-0090].
PNG
media_image1.png
446
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of middle image of Park Fig. 6.
Park discloses that the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) may be configured such that vented gases are directed away from the first and second cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130), thereby preventing deterioration of the cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130) [0079-0082, 0091-0092]. Park discloses that the battery cell can include a vent line and related elements for discharging a gas to the outside of a battery module [0106-0109]. The vent line (210, Fig. 8) is arranged on the first housing side (cap plate 115) in the region of the releasable degassing opening (see Fig. 8) and includes an extension portion and a cover portion that covers the releasable degassing opening [0109-0110]. The battery cell configured with the vent line is designed to divert an escaping gas away from the first and second cell pole taps (see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]). Therefore, the vent line reads on the recited limitation of “a hood”. Accordingly Park discloses that (see annotation of Fig. 8, below):
the battery cell comprises exactly one hood which is arranged on the first housing side in a region of the releasable degassing opening and which is designed to divert a gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening with respect to the first direction, away from the first and second cell pole taps.
Notably, the recitation of “exactly one hood which is arranged on the first housing side in a region of the releasable degassing opening” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as requiring “exactly one hood” in the region of “the releasable degassing opening”, but is not interpreted as limiting the presence of additional “hoods” in other regions of the first housing side.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
1173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 8.
The recitation of “wherein the hood is configured to divert the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening towards the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the motor vehicle” 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, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a hood which is configured to “divert the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening towards the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the motor vehicle” is a hood which has a structure capable of directing gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening, and which is capable of being positioned within a motor vehicle with side skirt regions such that the gas is directed “towards the outside of the motor vehicle” and “not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”. The Examiner notes that the recited “side skirt regions” are a portion of the motor vehicle (instant specification: Pg. 13, lines 1-2; Fig. 5), and therefore do not further limit the structure of the claimed battery cell.
Park discloses that the hood is configured to cover the releasable degassing opening [0110], that the hood is configured to discharge gas to the outside of the battery module [0112]. Therefore, Park discloses that the hood has a structure capable of directing gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening. Park further discloses that the battery module can be applied to power a motor vehicle [0003-0004]. Since Park does not limit the orientation of the battery module within a motor vehicle, the battery module disclosed by Park is capable of being oriented in such a way that the hood directs gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening “towards the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”. Thus, the intended use limitation is met.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Park anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses that the battery cell is designed as a prismatic cell (see Fig. 2; [0043]) as required by Claim 2. The limitations of Claim 17 are met as laid out in Claim 1, above (see 112(d) rejection, above).
Regarding Claims 3, 11 and 18, Park anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses that the first housing side (cap plate 115) is combined with the case body (case 110) by welding or the like [0052], and Park discloses that the first housing side (cap plate 115) is designed to withstand internal pressures below a predetermined pressure [0046]. Therefore, the first housing side (cap plate 115) is understood to be designed as a rigid housing cover of the cell housing (see Fig. 2) as required by Claims 3 and 11. The limitations of Claim 18 are met as laid out in Claim 1, above (see 112(d) rejection, above).
Regarding Claims 5, 14-15 and 20, Park anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses that a distance of the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) in the first direction from a margin of the first housing side is less than a distance from a center of the first housing side (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below; [0021, 0089]) as required by Claims 5, 14, and 15. The limitations of Claim 20 are met as laid out in Claim 1, above (see 112(d) rejection, above).
PNG
media_image3.png
501
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of middle image of Park Fig. 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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) 4, 7, 12-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190379011-A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 12-13 and 19, Park anticipates all of the limitations of Claims 1-3 as set forth above. Park further teaches that the battery cell housing includes a housing bottom part (case 110, Fig. 2) different from the first housing side (cap plate 115). Park discloses that the battery cell is formed as a quadrangular column having a rectangular cross-section [0043]. Therefore, the housing bottom includes a second side which is arranged facing the first housing side, a third and fourth side which face one another, and a fifth and sixth side, which face one another (see annotation of Fig. 8, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1023
1071
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 8.
Although Park does not explicitly disclose that the housing bottom part (case 110) is designed as one piece, Park does depict the housing bottom part (case 110) as being a continuous component (see Figs. 1-2, 8) and describes the housing bottom part (case 110) as “having one opened side” which is sealed by the first housing side (cap plate 115) [0041]. Therefore, it is understood that the housing bottom part (case 110) is “designed as one piece”.
Assuming, arguendo, that Park does not disclose with sufficient specificity that the housing bottom part (case 110) is designed as one piece, 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 housing bottom part (case 110) as a single piece, since Park strongly suggests the housing bottom part is formed as a single piece (see Figs. 1-2, 8; [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming the housing bottom part (case 110) as a single piece would result in a successful battery cell.
Although Park does not explicitly teach that the housing bottom part is formed as a deep-drawn component, Examiner notes that the limitation regarding the housing bottom piece designed as “a deep-drawn component” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). Although the structure implied by the process is considered, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not its method of production (see MPEP 2113, I). Since the prior art anticipates / renders obvious a housing bottom part designed as a single piece, the structure implied by forming the housing bottom part “as a deep-drawn component” is met, and thus the limitation “wherein the housing bottom part is designed as one piece as a deep-drawn component” as required by Claims 4, 12 and 13 is met. The limitations of Claim 19 are met as laid out in Claim 1, above (see 112(d) rejection, above).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses a battery module (200, Fig. 8) including a battery cell [0093, 0107]. Examiner notes that the preamble statement of a high-voltage battery “for a motor vehicle” recites the purpose or intended use of the high-voltage battery, and does not further limit the structure of the high-voltage battery. Therefore, the preamble statement “for a motor vehicle” is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Although Park does not specifically disclose that the battery module is a “high-voltage battery”, Park discloses all of the claimed structure of the recited high-voltage battery (see below) and Park discloses that the battery module comprises multiple battery cells (see Fig. 8). Therefore, absent a special definition for a “high-voltage battery”, the battery module of Park is interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of a “high-voltage battery” as supported by the instant specification (Pg. 1, Par.2: “High-voltage batteries for motor vehicles are typically formed by numerous cells”).
Assuming, arguendo, that a “high-voltage” battery has distinct characteristics from the battery module disclosed by Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen the battery module of Park to be a high-voltage battery since Park discloses that rechargeable batteries can be used in a module state to drive a motor in a vehicle [0003-0004, 0095] and since Park discloses that the number of batteries and electrical connection of the battery module can be selected in view of the desired power [0095]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the battery module to be a high-voltage battery would result in a successful battery.
Park discloses that the high-voltage battery has “one or more battery cells” (see Fig. 8). Park further discloses that the battery cell (interpreted as a single battery cell; see 112(b) rejection, above) comprises (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below):
a cell housing (combination of case 110 and cap plate 115, Fig. 2; [0041]) with a first housing side (cap plate 115), wherein, in the first housing side (cap plate 115), a releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) is arranged [0041], and
wherein the battery cell includes a first and a second cell pole tap (electrode terminals 130) which are arranged on the first housing side [0080, 0082],
wherein the second cell pole tap is arranged in a defined first direction between the first cell pole tap and the releasable degassing opening [0089-0090].
PNG
media_image1.png
446
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of middle image of Park Fig. 6.
Park discloses that the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) may be configured such that vented gases are directed away from the first and second cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130), thereby preventing deterioration of the cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130) [0079-0082, 0091-0092]. Park discloses that the battery cell can include a vent line and related elements for discharging a gas to the outside of a battery module [0106-0109]. The vent line (210, Fig. 8) is arranged on the first housing side (cap plate 115) in the region of the releasable degassing opening (see Fig. 8) and includes an extension portion and a cover portion that covers the releasable degassing opening [0109-0110].
“Hood” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a cover for parts of mechanisms”. Therefore, the vent line including the cover portion is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of “a hood”. Since the vent line is designed to divert an escaping gas away from the first and second cell pole taps (see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the vent line reads on the recited limitation of a hood which is “designed to divert a gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening, with respect to the first direction, away from the first and second cell pole taps”. Furthermore, since “exactly one hood” is arranged on the first housing side in a region of “the releasable degassing opening” (see annotation of Fig. 8, below) and is designed to divert gas away from the first cell pole tap and the second cell pole tap (see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the limitation “wherein the first and a second cell pole tap form a pair of cell pole taps and includes exactly one hood over the releasable degassing openings” is interpreted as being met (see 112(b) rejection, above).
PNG
media_image5.png
584
1173
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 16, Park anticipates/renders obvious the limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that a distance of the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) in the first direction from a margin of the first housing side is less than a distance from a center of the first housing side (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below; [0021, 0089]).
PNG
media_image3.png
501
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of middle image of Park Fig. 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in a prior section of this Office action.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190379011-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses a battery cell [0002, 0004, 0093, 0107] which can be used in a battery module (Fig. 8; [0093, 0107]), and Park discloses that a module including a plurality of rechargeable batteries can be used as a motor driving power source for a hybrid vehicle and an electric vehicle [0003-0004].
Therefore, although Park does not disclose a specific embodiment including a motor vehicle with a high-voltage battery including the disclosed battery cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the disclosed battery cell in a high-voltage battery (i.e. a battery module) in a motor vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success since Park discloses a battery module and indicates that a battery module can be successfully used in a motor vehicle.
Park discloses that the battery cell comprises (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below):
a cell housing (combination of case 110 and cap plate 115, Fig. 2; [0041]) with a first housing side (cap plate 115),
wherein, in the first housing side (cap plate 115), a releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) is arranged [0041], and
wherein the battery cell includes a first and a second cell pole tap (electrode terminals 130) which are arranged on the first housing side [0080, 0082],
wherein the second cell pole tap is arranged in a defined first direction between the first cell pole tap and the releasable degassing opening [0089-0090].
PNG
media_image1.png
446
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of middle image of Park Fig. 6.
Park discloses that the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) may be configured such that vented gases are directed away from the first and second cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130), thereby preventing deterioration of the cell pole taps (electrode terminals 130) [0079-0082, 0091-0092]. Park discloses that the battery cell can include a vent line and related elements for discharging a gas to the outside of a battery module [0106-0109]. The vent line (210, Fig. 8) is arranged on the first housing side (cap plate 115) in the region of the releasable degassing opening (see Fig. 8) and includes an extension portion and a cover portion that covers the releasable degassing opening [0109-0110].
“Hood” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a cover for parts of mechanisms”. Therefore, the vent line including the cover portion is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of “a hood”. Since the vent line is designed to divert an escaping gas away from the first and second cell pole taps (see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the vent line reads on the recited limitation of a hood which is “designed to divert a gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening, with respect to the first direction, away from the first and second cell pole taps”. Furthermore, since “exactly one hood” is arranged on the first housing side in a region of “the releasable degassing opening” (see annotation of Fig. 8, below) and is designed to divert gas away from the first cell pole tap and the second cell pole tap (i.e. a pair of cell pole taps; see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the limitation “wherein the first and the second cell pole taps form a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood over the releasable degassing opening” is interpreted as being met (see 112(b) rejection, above).
PNG
media_image5.png
584
1173
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 8.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190379011-A1) as applied to Claim 7, above, and in further view of Utley et al. (US-20140205870-A1).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Park anticipates/renders obvious all of the limitation of Claim 7 as set forth above. Park discloses that the high-voltage battery (battery module 200, Fig. 8) includes a plurality of battery cells, and that the exact number of battery cells can be selected in view of power requirements [0093, 0095, 0107]. Park further indicates that a battery module can be used to power a motor vehicle [0003-0004]. In a specific embodiment (Fig. 8), Park discloses one row of battery cells. Park does not disclose a specific embodiment including a first cell row and a second cell row.
Utley teaches a battery pack for a vehicle including a cell array including two generally parallel arrays of cells (see Fig. 1; [Abstract, 0013-0014]).
Since Utley teaches that two rows of battery cells can be used to form a successful battery pack for powering an automotive vehicle, 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 battery module of Park such that it includes two rows of battery cells as taught by Utley with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module (i.e. high-voltage battery) capable of powering a device such as a motor vehicle.
By providing the high-voltage battery to have two rows of battery cells, modified Park renders obvious the requirements of Claim 8 regarding a high-voltage battery comprising (see annotation of modified Park Fig. 8, below):
a first cell row with multiple first battery cells and
a second cell row with multiple second battery cells,
wherein the first and second cell rows are arranged running parallel to one another in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction,
wherein the first housing sides of the first battery cells, with regard to a position of the first and second cell pole taps and the releasable degassing opening, are designed mirror symmetrically relative to the first housing sides of the second battery cells with respect to a plane of mirror symmetry running perpendicularly to the first direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
1157
2092
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Modified Park Fig. 8
Modified Park further renders obvious the requirements of Claim 9 of a high-voltage battery wherein (see annotation of modified Park Fig. 8, above):
the releasable degassing openings of the first cell row are farther apart from the releasable degassing openings of the second cell row in the first direction than the first and second cell pole taps of the first cell row are from the first and second cell pole taps of the second row.
Claim(s) 4, 12-13, 16 and 19 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190379011-A1) as applied to Claims 1-3, and in further view of Yoon (US-20060257731-A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 12-13 and 19, Park anticipates all of the limitations of Claims 1-3 as set forth above. Park further teaches that the battery cell housing includes a housing bottom part (case 110, Fig. 2) different from the first housing side (cap plate 115). Park discloses that the battery cell is formed as a quadrangular column having a rectangular cross-section [0043]. Therefore, the housing bottom includes a second side which is arranged facing the first housing side, a third and fourth side which face one another, and a fifth and sixth side, which face one another (see annotation of Fig. 8, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1023
1071
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 8.
Although Park does not explicitly disclose that the housing bottom part (case 110) is designed as one piece, Park does depict the housing bottom part (case 110) as being a continuous component (see Figs. 1-2, 8) and describes the housing bottom part (case 110) as “having one opened side” which is sealed by the first housing side (cap plate 115) [0041]. Therefore, it is understood that the housing bottom part (case 110) is “designed as one piece”.
Assuming, arguendo, that Park does not disclose with sufficient specificity that the housing bottom part (case 110) is designed as one piece, 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 housing bottom part (case 110) as a single piece, since Park strongly suggests the housing bottom part is formed as a single piece (see Figs. 1-2, 8; [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming the housing bottom part (case 110) as a single piece would result in a successful battery cell.
Although Park does not explicitly teach that the housing bottom part is formed as a deep-drawn component, Examiner notes that the limitation regarding the housing bottom piece designed as “a deep-drawn component” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113), and the housing designed as a single piece appears to render obvious the structure implied by a housing formed as a “deep-drawn component”. Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of persuasive evidence that the structure imparted by forming the housing of a deep-drawn component differs from the structure of the housing anticipated/rendered obvious by Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the housing as a deep-drawn component in view of the teachings of Yoon.
Yoon teaches a battery including a case (120, Fig. 1; reads on cell housing) formed in a substantially rectangular shape and having a high strength [0033, 0036]. The case can be formed by deep-drawing a metal into one body, and can be formed from one of Al-based, Mg-based, steel-based, stainless steel-based metals and the equivalents which can be deep-drawn and, advantageously, are lightweight and have a high strength [0036].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have formed the housing of Park by deep-drawing one of the metal materials taught by Yoon with a reasonable expectation that forming the housing of a deep-drawn metal material would result in a successful housing that is lightweight and has a high strength. Thus, the limitation “wherein the housing bottom part is designed as one piece as a deep-drawn component” as required by Claims 4, 12 and 13 is met. The limitations of Claim 19 are met as laid out in Claim 1, above (see 112(b) rejection, above).
Regarding Claim 16, Park renders obvious the limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that a distance of the releasable degassing opening (vent portion 160) in the first direction from a margin of the first housing side is less than a distance from a center of the first housing side (see annotation of Park Fig. 6, below; [0021, 0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Park does not teach a hood around the degassing opening, and that vent holes are structurally distinct from a hood (Remarks, Pg. 11).
In response, the Examiner notes that the vent holes are not relied upon to render obvious the structure of a “hood” (see rejection of e.g. Claim 1, above). Instead, the vent line (210, Fig. 8; [0097]) of Park is relied upon to read on the claimed “hood”.
The Applicant traverses the assertion that diverting gas using a hood is an intended use, and notes that instant Fig. 3 shows a hood structure above the releasable degassing opening (Remarks, Pg. 12). Applicant argues that the hood is a definitive structure and requires patentable weight (Remarks, Pg. 12).
In response, the Examiner notes that the structure of a “hood” is given patentable weight, and is mapped to the vent line (210, Fig. 8) of Park. As laid out in the rejections of record, it is the function of the hood which is considered intended use. For instance, although the “hood” of Claim 1 is mapped to the structure of the prior art, the intended function of the hood (i.e. “is configured to divert gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening towards the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the motor vehicle”) only requires a hood which is capable of being positioned in a motor vehicle with lateral side skirt regions such that escaping gas is diverted towards the outside of the motor vehicle via the lateral side skirt regions. As discussed in detail with regards to Claim 1, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e. the battery cell) 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 structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, Park discloses that the hood is configured to cover the releasable degassing opening [0110], that the hood is configured to discharge gas to the outside of the battery module [0112]. Thus, Park discloses that the hood has a structure capable of directing gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening. Park further discloses that the battery module can be applied to power a motor vehicle [0003-0004]. Since Park does not limit the orientation of the battery module within a motor vehicle, the battery module disclosed by Park is capable of being oriented in such a way that the hood directs gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening “towards the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”. Thus, the limitation is met.
Applicant has argued that Park’s batteries in a vehicle would result in the gas being vented outside of the battery without any directionality (Remarks, Pg. 13).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the vent line (reads on “hood”) is depicted as extending in a single direction along the battery module (see Fig. 8) and is disclosed as discharging gas to the outside of the battery module [0097]. Therefore, the vent line is capable of being positioned within a motor vehicle such that escaping gases are directed towards a lateral side of the motor vehicle. Additionally, since the vent line is depicted as a pipe (see Fig. 8), the vent line is understood to direct escaping gas in a particular direction (i.e. along the length of the vent line), and therefore is capable of being positioned within a motor vehicle such that escaping gas “is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the motor vehicle”.
Applicant has argued that the claims requires a single hood for each cell, and notes that the Office maps Park’s vent line 210 (including extension portion and cover portion) to the claimed hood (Remarks, Pg. 13).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the independent claims only require a single battery cell. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding a single hood for “each” cell does not appear commensurate with the scope of the claims. As such, vent line 210 is maintained as reading on the claimed hood. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim use open-ended language to indicate the inclusion of a hood (e.g. Claim 1 requires that “the battery cell comprises exactly one hood”). The use of open-ended language does not exclude additional unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03 (I).
Applicant has argued that the Examiner’s position of relying on “a structure capable of directing escaping gas from the degassing opening” is incorrect since the claim requires a hood and since the amended claim recites “degassing opening toward the outside of the motor vehicle via respective lateral side skirt regions”, and the prior art does not teach any lateral side skirts (Remarks, Pgs. 13-14).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 is directed towards the structure of a battery cell, and the recitation of lateral side skirt regions (which are understood to be a portion of the motor vehicle; see instant specification: Pg. 13, lines 1-2; Fig. 5) does not further limit the structure of the claimed battery cell. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the structure of the battery cell hood required by the intended use limitations is a hood which has a structure capable of directing gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening, and which is capable of being positioned within a motor vehicle with side skirt regions such that the gas is directed “towards the outside of the motor vehicle” and “not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”. Park discloses such a structure as laid out, above.
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 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights