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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baum et al. (EP 3686959 A1, published 29 Jul 2020, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 13, Baum et al. discloses a battery pack, comprising: an outer enclosure assembly (housing 6’) establishing an interior (interior 6b); a battery array housed within the interior ([0054]; Fig. 5); a pressure equalization device (valve 12) configurable between a first configuration in which a gas path (22, 25) established by an internal bore (see Fig, 7) of a housing (23/24) of the pressure equalization device (12) is open and a second configuration in which the gas path is closed ([0059-0062]; Fig. 7); and the pressure equalization device includes a valve (12) that is movable between a first position (open) in which the valve (12) is spaced apart from a sealing surface (seal 26) of the housing (23/24) and a second position (lifted and closed) in which the valve (12) is received against the sealing surface (26) to close the gas path (22, 25, [0058, 0063]). Therefore, Baum meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Baum further teaches that the valve (12) may be biased apart from the sealing surface (26) by a spring force ([0058]) when in the first position. Therefore, Baum meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Baum further discloses that the valve (12) includes a thermally activated expandable material (intumescent material of seal 26) that is configured to expand ([0024]) to close the gas path (25). Therefore, Baum meets the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Baum further discloses an embodiment wherein the pressure equalization device (valve 12’’’) includes a water-impermeable membrane (440) held within the housing (100’’’, [0098-0099]; Fig. 21). Therefore, Baum meets the limitations of claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al. (EP 3686959 A1, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Jones (US 20140242423 A1, published 28 Aug 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Baum et al. discloses a traction battery pack, comprising: an outer enclosure assembly (housing 6’); a pressure equalization device (valve 12) received within a wall (lid 11) of the outer enclosure assembly ([0054]; Fig. 5); the pressure equalization device includes a housing (valve housing 23/24) and a valve (12) configured to close a gas path (fluid lines 22, 25) through the housing during a battery thermal event of the traction battery pack ([0059-0062]; Fig. 7); and the valve (12) is movable between a first position (open) in which the valve is spaced apart from a sealing surface (seal 26) of the housing (23/24) and a second position (lifted and closed) in which the valve (12) is received against the sealing surface (26) to close the gas path (fluid lines 22, 25, [0058]). Baum further discloses that the valve (12) includes a thermally activated expandable material (intumescent material of seal 26) that is configured to expand ([0024]), thus lifting the valve plate (see plate in Fig. 7, located above seal 26 and below the spring coils) to close the gas path (25). While Baum teaches that the valve (12) closes the gas path (22, 25) during a thermal event, Baum does not clearly disclose that the valve (12) is driven from the first position (open) to the second position (lifted and closed) when the pressure or a temperature inside the outer enclosure assembly (6’) exceeds a predefined threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a predefined temperature threshold would need to be reached for the intumescent material of Baum to expand and move the valve plate. The threshold for expansion is a property of the intumescent material. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The valve (12) taught by Baum et al. is configured to move between the first position (open) and the second position (lifted and closed [0058]) but Baum does not disclose a poppet valve. Jones discloses a vent valve (230) which may be a poppet valve ([0030]) configured to move between a first position and a second position relative to the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a poppet valve, as taught by Jones, for the valve of Baum. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum further teaches that the valve (12) may be biased apart from the sealing surface (26) by a spring force ([0058]) when in the first position. Jones also explicitly teaches a spring-loaded poppet valve ([0030]). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum et al. does not teach a frangible connector. Jones further discloses rupturable diaphragms or burst disc assemblies (460) as example vent valves ([0030]), and teaches that pressure equalization of the enclosure also reduces the fatigue range for a vent valve including a rupturable diaphragm ([0033]).
While Jones does not explicitly teach a configuration in which a poppet valve is held apart from the sealing surface by a frangible connector (such as a rupturable diaphragm) when in the first position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rupturable diaphragm with a valve for pressure equalization (such as the poppet valve of modified Baum), in order to reduce the fatigue range of the rupturable diaphragm, as taught by Jones. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum further discloses that the valve (12) includes a thermally activated expandable material (intumescent material of seal 26) that is configured to expand ([0024]) to close the gas path (25). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum further discloses an embodiment wherein the pressure equalization device (valve 12’’’) includes a water-impermeable membrane (440) held within the housing (100’’’, [0098-0099]; Fig. 21). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Baum further discloses that the water-impermeable membrane (440) is configured to allow a gas to exit the pressure equalization device (12’’’) through the gas path when the valve is not closing the gas path ([0099]). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum further discloses that the wall (lid 11) is part of an enclosure tray of the outer enclosure assembly ([0053-0054]). Baum does not clearly disclose that the housing of the valve (23/24) is dome-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the housing of the pressure equalization valve taught by Baum to be dome-shaped, rather than the tiered-shape shown in Figure 7. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum further discloses that a plurality of batteries may be housed inside the outer enclosure assembly (battery housing [0036]). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Baum et al. does not teach a frangible connector. Jones discloses rupturable diaphragms or burst disc assemblies (460) as example vent valves ([0030]), and teaches that pressure equalization of the enclosure also reduces the fatigue range for a vent valve including a rupturable diaphragm ([0033]).
While Jones does not explicitly teach a configuration in which a valve is held apart from a sealing surface by a frangible connector (such as a rupturable diaphragm) when in the first position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a rupturable diaphragm with a valve for pressure equalization (such as valve assembly taught by Baum), in order to reduce the fatigue range of the rupturable diaphragm, as taught by Jones. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 18.
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al. (EP 3686959 A1, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Jones (US 20140242423 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, 16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Engman (US 20230168698 A1, with domestic priority date 30 Nov 2021).
Regarding claim 5, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Neither Baum et al. or Jones teaches a thermostatic actuator. Engman discloses a valve (variable orifice 204) which is separated from a sealing surface (sealing ring 222) by a thermostatic actuator (208) when in a first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a thermostatic actuator, as taught by Engman, to the pressure equalization device of modified Baum, between the poppet valve and the sealing surface. While Engman is not directed to a battery pack, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143, F.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Engman further discloses that the thermostatic actuator (208) includes a wax element (218) which surrounds the piston (210), and thus has a ring shape. Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Baum et al, does not teach a thermostatic actuator. Engman discloses a valve (variable orifice 204) which is separated from a sealing surface (sealing ring 222) by a thermostatic actuator (208) when in a first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a thermostatic actuator, as taught by Engman, to the pressure equalization device of Baum, between the valve and the sealing surface. While Engman is not directed to a battery pack, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143, F.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 17.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al. (EP 3686959 A1, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Jones (US 20140242423 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-12 and 18 above, and further in view of Baum (EP 3644402 A1, published 29 Apr 2020, paragraphs cited from provided English translation).
Regarding claim 21, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum et al. (‘959) and Jones do not disclose that the sealing surface is an angled portion of an inner diameter wall of the housing.
Baum (‘402) discloses a pressure equalization device (pressure equalization valve 6’) with an angled sealing surface (IP seal 26) disposed on an inner wall of the housing (1’, Figs. 5, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an inner diameter wall of the housing taught by Baum et al. (‘959) could be angled, as taught by Baum (‘402). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Baum et al. (‘959) meets the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, modified Baum et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Baum et al. (‘959) and Jones do not clearly disclose that an outer flange of the valve is moved into abutting contact with the sealing surface to close the gas path when the pressure or the temperature exceeds the predefined threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a predefined temperature threshold would need to be reached for the intumescent material of Baum to expand and move the valve plate. The threshold for expansion is a property of the intumescent material. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Modified Baum et al (‘959) still does not clearly disclose an outer flange.
Baum (‘402) discloses a pressure equalization device (pressure equalization valve 6) with an outer flange (outer portion of valve plate 16) which moved into abutting contact with a sealing surface (sealing surface 15) to close the gas path (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the valve of Baum et al. (‘959) could further comprise an outer flange, as taught by Baum (‘402), which is moved into abutting contact with the sealing surface. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Baum et al. (‘959) meets the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Baum (‘402) discloses a traction battery pack, comprising: an outer enclosure assembly (housing 23); and a pressure equalization device (pressure equalization valve 6’) mounted within a wall of the outer enclosure assembly (cover 22), the pressure equalization device including: a housing (1’) defining an internal bore; a water-impermeable membrane (membrane 31) disposed within a first section (2’) of the internal bore; a valve (6’, comprising disc spring 25) disposed within a second section (3’) of the internal bore; and the valve movable between a first position in which the valve is spaced apart from an angled sealing surface (IP seal 26) of the housing to provide a gas path (7’) through the internal bore, and a second position in which an outer flange of the valve (disc spring 25) is received against the angled sealing surface (26) to close the gas path (7’). Baum further teaches an intumescent layer (27) which seals the gas path in the event of fire ([0055, 0061]). Baum does not clearly disclose that the valve is driven from the first position to the second position when a pressure or a temperature inside the outer enclosure assembly exceeds a predefined threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a predefined temperature threshold would need to be reached for the intumescent material of Baum to expand and move the valve plate. The threshold for expansion is a property of the intumescent material. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, modified Baum meets the limitations of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the poppet valve of Jones could not be substituted for the valve taught by Baum et al., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that Engman is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, that being fire prevention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights