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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/8/25. Claims 1-2 are amended. The rejection of claim 1 over Nakamura in view of Shimizu is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, a new rejection is made over Fujii, below. Claims 3-6 are canceled. Claims 7-24 are added. Claims 1-2 and 7-24 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0241017) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2015/0125720).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Nakamura teaches an energy storage facility, or electronic apparatus case (201), comprising:
an energy storage apparatus that includes an energy storage device, or battery (702) housed in the case (Figure 16, [0018], [0154]); and
a housing, or case bodies (10, 20), that house the energy storage apparatus (see, e.g., Figure 16) including a gas discharge portion that includes:
a wall portion, or long side portions (22), and
a gas discharge opening, or ventilation ports (24), for discharging gas, or releasing of gas generated from the electronic apparatus through the ventilation ports ([0046]), and
the gas discharge portion includes a protrusion, or entry prevention portions (52) formed on the circumferences of edges of ventilation ports (24), and which protrude toward the inner portion of the case (Figures 9-10, [0096]-[0098]).
Further regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, while Nakamura teaches gas discharging from the energy storage device ([0046]), Nakamura is silent on the structure and relative placement to the discharge opening of the discharge port for the gas.
Fujii teaches an energy storage apparatus, or battery supply device (100), comprising:
an energy storage device, or battery cells (1);
a discharge path, or gas passage (46), for gas discharged from the energy storage device (1);
an outer case, or top cover (20, end plates (3) and binding members (4);
and a gas discharge port, or duct exhaust portion (6x), for releasing exhaust gas (Figures 1 and 6, [0037], [0040] [0074], [0093]).
Fujii teaches that the structure discussed above is designed to safely exhaust an inner gas of high temperature or pressure ([0003], [0006]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use an energy storage apparatus in energy storage facility of Nakamura such as suggested by Fujii in order to provide a port by which exhausted gas could be provided to the ventilation area of Nakamura. This combining of prior art elements would yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I A
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claim 11, as to the arrangement of the gas discharge port relative to the wall portion, the examiner finds that it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a suitable arrangement, such as a direct facing of the gas discharge port relative to the wall portion, in order to ensure that the discharged gases are quickly and efficiently discharged from the energy storage facility rather than remaining in, or moving in a longer path through, the facility. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI C)
Further regarding claims 11 , 18, and 24, the examiner finds that the skilled artisan, able to place to discharge port directly facing the wall as discussed above, would also be able to determine the appropriate structure, if any, to ensure that the discharged gases are removed from the housing of the energy storage facility. For example, the skilled artisan will easily understand that any additional structure requires additional cost and maintenance, and not using additional structure would reduce cost and maintenance.
With further regard to claim 12, the energy storage device of Fujii includes gas release valves, or gas exhaust valves (11), which close gas exhaust openings (12) and wherein the discharge path (46) is located above the gas release valve (Figures 6-7, [0038]-[0039]).
Further regarding claim 19 and with regard to claims 8 and 15, Fujii teaches that the energy storage apparatus includes a path forming member, or first duct (6A), which forms the gas discharge path (46) and is U-shaped when viewed in the first direction, i.e. the direction shown in Figure 6 ([0078]-[0079]). It is seen in Figures 1-3 that the path forming member (6) is provided with the gas discharge port (6X) on one end and the other end is closed.
As for claims 2, 13, and 20, the gas discharge openings of Nakamura are slits, and the protrusion (52) protrudes on one side of the slit (Figure 10). The examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, does not preclude more than one protrusion (“the gas discharge portion includes a protrusion” see MPEP 2111.03 I)
As for claims 10, 17, and 23, Nakamura teaches the claimed structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
797
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7, 9, 14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Fujii as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2012/0263989).
The teachings of Nakamura and Fujii as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Nakamura in view of Fujii teaches the claimed energy storage facility but fails to teach wherein the housing is a rack including a shelf plate on which the energy storage apparatus is mounted.
It is noted that Nakamura on view of Fujii teaches the protrusion disposed facing the gas discharge port of the energy storage apparatus as discussed above with reference to claims 1, 12, and 19 (middle of page 3) and claims 1, 11, 18, and 24 (page 4) and as required by claims 9, 16, and 22.
Byun teaches an energy storage facility, or rack housing assembly (105), wherein a plurality of energy storage apparatuses, or battery trays (10), are provided on shelf plates, or shelf members (150) (Figure 1, [0024]-[0025]). The energy storage facility (105) includes a housing, or rack housing (100), including a gas discharge portion including a wall, or lateral frame (130) and a gas discharge opening, or vent holes (130’) for directly exhausting high temperature hot air from the battery trays (Figure 1, [0042]).
Byun further teaches that a rack housing, as discussed above, is desirable for accommodating a plurality of battery trays and connecting the battery trays so that the trays are modulated, and for improving anti-vibration characteristics that may be generating during transfer ([0006]-[0007]). The skilled artisan will also understand that the rack housing of Byun, by allowing for space for a plurality of battery trays, can be used to store more power than a smaller housing, such as that of Nakamura.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use a rack housing such as suggested by Byun in the energy storage facility of Nakamura in view of Fujii in order to accommodate a plurality of battery trays for the reasons discussed above.
Additionally, since both Nakamura and Byun teach gas discharge portions in the housing, the structure of the gas discharge portions including protrusions of Nakamura can be maintained in the rack housing of Nakamura in view of Byun and Fujii.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, as discussed above, Byun teaches a shelf plate on which the energy storage apparatus is mounted.
Further regarding claims 9, 16, and 22, Byun teaches a plurality of energy storage apparatuses (10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/8/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, see 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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729