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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “the vehicle” (last line) should read “the motor vehicle” to reflect the previously provided antecedent basis and 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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are 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 1 recites “wherein the hood is configured to divert the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening towards the outside of the motor vehicle such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”. Although the instant specification supports that the position of the releasable degassing openings can facilitate discharge of escaping gases to the outside of the high-voltage battery and the vehicle (instant specification: Pg. 8, first paragraph), and that the hood is designed to direct gas in a targeted way, e.g. laterally, away from the cell pole taps (Pg. 6, last paragraph), the instant specification does not appear to support that the hood diverts gas “towards the outside of the motor vehicle” or that the hood directs gas such that it is not directed towards “the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle”.
Specifically, although the instant specification indicates that escaping gas can be directed towards the outside of the vehicle (Pg. 8, first paragraph), the instant specification does not indicate that the hood is configured to achieve this effect. Furthermore, the instant specification indicates that escaping gas can be directed towards degassing ducts that can run parallel to the cell rows (Pg. 8, first paragraph), and that the escaping gas can be directed towards the outside via side skirt regions 42 (Pg. 13, first paragraph). Since these features are understood to extend in the front-rear direction of the motor vehicle (see instant Fig. 5), it is unclear that the gases are not first “directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle” before being discharged to the outside.
Furthermore, although the instant specification indicates that the hood can direct gas laterally (Pg. 6, last paragraph), and that the hood is intended to prevent gas from being directed upward towards the passenger space (Pg. 7, first paragraph) there is no indication that the hood does not direct gas towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the vehicle. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected as introducing new matter.
Claims 7 and 10 each recite “wherein each pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood”. Although the instant specification indicates that each battery cell can comprise a hood on the upper side of the cell housing in a region of the releasable degassing opening , and that the hood can be designed to divert gas away from the cell poles (instant specification: Pg. 6, last paragraph; Pg. 12, first paragraph; see also instant Fig. 3), the instant specification does not appear to support that a pair of cell pole taps “includes exactly one hood”, which appears to indicate that the claimed “hood” is component of the cell pole taps. Accordingly Claims 7 and 10 and dependent claims 8-9 are 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 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.
Claims 7 and 10 each recite the limitation “wherein each pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood”. The limitation “each pair of cell pole taps” does not appear to have antecedent basis, and therefore it is unclear what structures constitute a pair of cell pole taps, and which pairs are referenced. Specifically, Claims 7 and 10 each provide antecedent basis for a singular battery cell. Therefore, assuming that a pair of cell pole taps refers to the combination of a first cell pole tap and a second cell pole tap (i.e. the only cell pole taps recited), Claims 7 and 10 provide support for a pair of cell pole taps. The term “each” in “each pair of cell pole taps” appears to reference multiple pairs of cell pole taps. Therefore, it is unclear whether multiple battery cells should be referenced, or whether this limitation should read “a pair of cell pole taps”. As such, Claims 7 and 10 and dependent claims 8-9 are rejected as being indefinite. Since the claims do not recite multiple battery cells, it appears that the second interpretation should be applied to the claims, and this limitation should be interpreted as “wherein a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly hood”.
However, assuming the antecedent basis issue noted above is clarified, Examiner notes that the structural relationship of “a pair of cell pole taps” and the “hood” is still unclear in the recitation “wherein a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood”. Specifically, the term “includes” appears to indicate that the “hood” is a component of “a pair of cell pole taps”. However, the instant specification does not appear to support that the first and second cell pole taps include the hood. Instead, the instant specification indicates that the hood is formed in the region of the releasable degassing opening, and is designed to divert gas away from a pair of cell pole taps (instant specification: Pg. 6, last paragraph; Pg. 12, first paragraph; see also instant Fig. 3). Therefore, it is unclear what structural relationship is intended by the recitation of “a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood”, and Claims 7 and 10 and dependent claims 8-9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “exactly one hood” is arranged on the first housing side in a region of the releasable degassing opening and is designed to divert gas away from a pair of cell pole taps as supported by the instant specification (instant specification: Pg. 6, last paragraph; Pg. 12, first paragraph; see also instant Fig. 3).
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). Claim 7, from which Claim 8 depends, only provides antecedent basis for a single battery cell (i.e. “A high-voltage battery for a motor vehicle with a battery cell”). Therefore, 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 “battery cell” of Claim 7, whether these battery cells are distinct/different from the previously recited “battery cell”, or whether these battery cells are intended to be comprised of multiple of the previously recited “battery cell”. 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 battery cell” recited in Claim 7 as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 5) and as strongly indicated the by later recitations of “the first housing sides of the first battery cells” and “the first housing sides of the second battery cells”.
Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 each recite “wherein the battery cell comprises a hood which is arranged on the first housing side in the 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”. Claims 17-20 each depend from Claim 1, which has been amended to recite this limitation. Since Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a hood”, it is unclear whether these claims should recite “the hood”, or whether these claims are intended to introduce a second hood to the battery cell. Accordingly, Claims 17-20 are rejected as being indefinite. Since the instant specification does not appear to support the presence of a second hood, it appears that the first interpretation should be applied to the claims. Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, as long as the subject matter of Claim 1 is met, the subject matter recited in Claims 17-20 will be interpreted as being met.
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 battery cell comprises a hood which is arranged on the first housing side in the 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”. As discussed in the 112(b) rejection of these claims (see above), the recitation of “a hood” should likely read “the hood” since Claim 1 already recites “a hood”. Therefore, since Claim 1 (from which Claims 17-20 each depend) already recites the limitation found in each of Claims 17-20 (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 such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the 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 such that the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening is not directed towards the front, rear, top, or bottom of the 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 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 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 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(b) 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(b) 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(b) 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(b) 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 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 a pair cell pole taps (i.e. the combination of the first cell pole tap and the second cell pole tap; see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the limitation “wherein a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood” 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 a pair of cell pole taps (i.e. the combination of the first cell pole tap and the second cell pole tap; see gas discharge direction “G” in Fig. 8; [0106]), the limitation “wherein a pair of cell pole taps includes exactly one hood” 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 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that Claim 1 now requires the battery cell to comprise exactly one hood, and further limits the direction that the hood is intended to direct escaping gas (Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant notes that the prior art Park teaches two hoods.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Although Applicant has pointed out a structural difference between the battery cells of the prior art and the battery cells of the instant application (i.e. Park teaches two hoods 210), Examiner notes that this difference has not yet been clearly claimed in a way which distinguishes the instant application from the prior art. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 requires “exactly one hood which is arranged on the first housing side in a region of the releasable degassing opening” (emphasis added). This limitation does not limit the battery cell from comprising additional “hoods” in other regions of the first housing side. As noted in the rejections of record (see above), Park discloses “exactly one hood” in the region of “the releasable degassing opening”. Accordingly, the claim limitation is interpreted as being met.
Applicant has further argued that none of the cited references have a hood configured to divert gas away from the front, rear, top and bottom, and that Park’s batteries in a vehicle would result in the gas being vented not sideways, but towards the rear or front of the vehicle (Remarks, Pgs. 10-11).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but notes that this limitation amounts to the intended use of the hood. Since Claim 1 does not require a motor vehicle, nor does it require a particular orientation of the battery cells, the prior art Park discloses the structure necessary for the hood to vent gas as recited. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the gas discharge direction (G) of the prior art Park [Park: 0080, 0091] is similar to the gas discharge direction of the instant application (see annotations below).
PNG
media_image7.png
962
1861
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Left: Annotation of Park Fig. 8; Right: Annotation of instant Fig. 3.
Conclusion
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 3/12/2026