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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments were directed to the prior rejection based on Wook in view of Mutsuki, and specifically to whether Mutsuki discloses or suggests a sidewall of the gas discharge flow path being curved in an axial direction between the large end and the small end.
Applicant’s amendment/arguments in regards to claim 1 were found persuasive over the previously applied prior art rejection of record. However, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted that render the previous arguments moot. The rejections have been updated as set forth below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/925,105 in response to the amendments filed on 03/12/2026. Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. KR 10-2021-0024310 filed on 02/23/2021, KR10-2022-0021761 filed on 02/18/2022 and PCT/KR2022/002499 filed on 02/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 11/14/2022 and 07/19/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook et al. (US-20060174794-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cook discloses a gas venting device (see e.g. "inflator 10′" in paragraph [0040] and part number 10' in FIG. 3) comprising:
a bracket having a through hole formed in a central portion thereof (see e.g. " the nozzle 80′" in paragraph [0044] and part number 80' in FIG. 3), and
a venting disk (see e.g. "foil material 182" in paragraph [0039] and part number 182 in FIG. 3) which is fastened to the bracket while in contact with one surface of the bracket to shield the through hole (see e.g. "a foil material 182 may extend over the opening to the passage 90′ and may be adhered to the end surface 84′ of the nozzle 80′." in paragraph [0039] and part number 182 in FIG. 3) and is configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied (see e.g. "FIG. 4 illustrates the inflator 10′ shortly after actuation of the igniter 130′ and after rupturing of the foil material 182" in paragraph [0045] and part number 182 in FIG. 4),
wherein a gas discharge flow path is formed in the through hole formed in the bracket (see e.g. FIG. 4), and a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in a gas discharge direction to have a large end and a small end (see e.g. FIGs. 3 and 4 and annotated figure below),
wherein a sidewall of the gas discharge flow path is curved in an axial direction of the gas discharge flow path between the large end and the small end (see e.g. annotated figure below), and
wherein the venting disk is at the small end of the gas discharge flow path (see e.g. part number 182 in FIGs. 3 and 4 and annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Cook discloses the gas venting device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Cook further discloses that the gas venting device comprises a discharge guide member (see e.g. "throat 114' " in paragraph [0041] and part number 114' in FIGs. 3 and 4) which is inserted into the through hole of the bracket and has a gas discharge flow path formed in a central portion thereof (see e.g. part number 114' in FIGs. 3 and 4),
wherein a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in the gas discharge direction (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
970
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 3, Cook discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Cook further discloses that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
399
928
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 4, Cook discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Cook further discloses that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape (see e.g. annotated figure below) in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall of the gas discharge flow path is concavely or convexly curved (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
535
951
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 5, Cook discloses the gas venting device of claim 4 (see e.g. claim 4 rejection above).
Cook further discloses that the gas venting device has a straight flow path having a constant cross-sectional area is formed on an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path so as to follow a truncated cone-shaped flow path (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
402
936
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 6,
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 7,
(Cook, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 11
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook et al. (KR 2016-0112768 A) and further in view of Keiji (JP-2007285287-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wook discloses a gas venting device (see e.g. "venting disc assembly 210" in paragraph [98] on page 10 and FIGs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a bracket having a through hole formed in a central portion thereof (see e.g. "venting bracket 211" in paragraph [17] on page 4 and part number 211 in FIG. 3); and
a venting disk which is fastened to the bracket while in contact with one surface of the bracket to shield the through hole and is configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied (see e.g. "venting disc 212 is fixed to the body" in paragraph [18] in page 4 and "a venting disc coupled to the venting bracket to shield the vent hole, and to be ruptured when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto" in paragraph [6] on page 2 and part number 212 in FIGs. 3 and 4),
wherein a gas discharge flow path is formed in the through hole formed in the bracket (see e.g. "A gas flow path for discharging the gas of the gas to the outside of the vehicle is formed." paragraph [107] on page 10).
Wook does not disclose that a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in a gas discharge direction to have a large end and a small end, wherein a sidewall of the gas discharge flow path is curved in an axial direction of the gas discharge flow path between the large end and the small end, and wherein the venting disk is at the small end of the gas discharge flow path.
Keiji, however, in an analogous art directed to shaping pressurized gas discharge flow paths, discloses a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in a gas discharge direction to have a large end and a small end (see e.g. FIG. 4d of Keiji and annotated figure below), wherein a sidewall of the gas discharge flow path is curved in an axial direction of the gas discharge flow path between the large end and the small end (see e.g. the sidewalls in FIG. 4d of Keiji).
Keiji also teaches that the flow path shape is particularly preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently (see e.g. paragraph [67] of Keiji). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. such that a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in a gas discharge direction to have a large end and a small end, and a sidewall of the gas discharge flow path is curved in an axial direction of the gas discharge flow path between the large end and the small end as taught by Keiji in order to have a flow path shape which is preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently as suggested by Keiji.
In regard to the claim limitation “wherein the venting disk is at the small end of the gas discharge flow path,” Wook discloses that the venting disk 212 shields/covers the through hole 211a of the venting bracket 211 and ruptures when a predetermined pressure is applied, thereby opening the through hole 211a for gas discharge (see e.g. paragraphs [18]-[20] and [92]-[94] of Wook). Keiji teaches forming the gas discharge flow path as a narrowed throttle portion having a small end/narrowed portion for converting pressure energy into velocity energy and improving gas discharge efficiency (see e.g. paragraphs [45], [57], and [67] of Keiji). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to position the small end of the modified gas discharge flow path at the venting disk side of Wook’s through hole because Wook’s venting disk is the pressure-rupturable member that shields the through hole, and placing the narrowed/small end at the venting disk side would predictably direct and concentrate the accelerated gas flow/pressure effect at the rupturable venting disk to facilitate opening of the gas discharge path. Such arrangement would merely involve applying Keiji’s known narrowed gas-flow path configuration to Wook’s known venting bracket/venting disk structure to obtain the predictable result of improved gas discharge through the venting device.
PNG
media_image6.png
399
519
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Keiji, figure 4d, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 12, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the gas venting device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that the venting disk includes:
a disk outer peripheral portion fastened to the bracket (see e.g. outer portion with holes on part number 212 in FIG. 4 and the disc part number 212 being fastened to the bracket utilizing an outer portion in FIG. 3); and
a disk inner peripheral portion which is integrally formed with the disk outer peripheral portion as one body, shields the through hole, and ruptures when the predetermined pressure is applied (see e.g. (see e.g. "venting disc 212 is fixed to the body" in paragraph [18] in page 4 and "a venting disc coupled to the venting bracket to shield the vent hole, and to be ruptured when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto" in paragraph [6] on page 2 and part number 212 in FIGs. 3 and 4),
wherein a notch is formed in the disk inner peripheral portion so as to rupture when the predetermined pressure is applied (see e.g. "The inner peripheral portion of the disk may have at least one notch" in paragraph [46] on page 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Wook in view of Keiji discloses a battery module (see e.g. "battery module" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook) comprising:
a plurality of secondary batteries (see e.g. "a plurality of secondary batteries" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook); and
a module frame on which the secondary batteries are mounted (see e.g. "a pack case having a lower case and an upper case coupled to the lower case, the case having an inner space for receiving the battery module" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook)
wherein the gas venting device according to claim 1 (Wook in view of Keiji disclose the gas venting device of claim 1; see e.g. claim 1 rejection above) is fastened to a first side of the module frame (see e.g. "Wherein the venting disc assembly is formed in a plate shape having a through hole and is coupled to the outside of the pack case so that the through hole is positioned to correspond to the gas discharge port" in paragraph [6] on page 2 and FIGs. 1 and 2 of Wook).
Regarding Claim 14, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery module of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Wook further discloses a first surface of the bracket opposite to a second surface of the bracket contacting the venting disk is in contact with an outer surface of the module frame (see e.g. FIGs. 1 and 2; one side of the venting bracket is in contact with the outer surface of the module frame).
Regarding Claim 16, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery module of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that the battery module comprises a sealing member for sealing a gap between the module frame and an outer periphery of the gas venting device (see e.g. "The sealing member 215a inserted into the groove 211c may enhance airtightness between the venting bracket 211 and the pack case 100." in paragraph [90] on page 9 and part number 215a in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Wook in view of Keiji discloses a battery pack (see e.g. "battery pack" in Abstract) comprising:
at least one battery module (see e.g. "battery module" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook) including a plurality of secondary batteries (see e.g. "comprising a plurality of secondary batteries" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook); and
a battery pack case including a tray on which the battery module is mounted and a pack cover that covers the battery module (see e.g. "a pack case having a lower case and an upper case coupled to the lower case, the case having an inner space for receiving the battery module and a gas outlet at one side" in paragraph [5] on page 2 of Wook),
wherein the gas venting device according to claim 1 (Wook in view of Keiji disclose the gas venting device of claim 1; see e.g. claim 1 rejection above) is fastened to a first side of the battery pack case (see e.g. "And a gas vent connected to the outside of the pack case" in paragraph [5] on page 2 and "Wherein the venting disc assembly is formed in a plate shape having a through hole and is coupled to the outside of the pack case so that the through hole is positioned to correspond to the gas discharge port" in paragraph [6] on page 2 and FIGs. 1 and 2 of Wook).
Regarding Claim 18, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery pack of claim 17 (see e.g. claim 17 rejection above).
Wook further discloses a first surface of the bracket opposite to a second surface of the bracket in contact with the venting disk is in contact with an outer surface of the battery pack case (see e.g. FIGs. 1 and 2; one side of the venting bracket is in contact with the outer surface of the battery pack case).
Regarding Claim 20, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery pack of claim 17 (see e.g. claim 17 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that the battery pack comprises a sealing member configured to seal a gap between the battery pack case and an outer periphery of the gas venting device (see e.g. "The sealing member 215a inserted into the groove 211c may enhance airtightness between the venting bracket 211 and the pack case 100." in paragraph [90] on page 9 and part number 215a in FIG. 3).
Claims 2-11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook et al. (KR 2016-0112768 A) in view of Keiji (JP-2007285287-A) as applied to claims 1, 13 and 17 above, and further in view of Mutsuki (JP 2013-187530 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the gas venting device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the gas venting device further comprises a discharge guide member which is inserted into the through hole of the bracket and has a gas discharge flow path formed in a central portion thereof, wherein a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in the gas discharge direction.
Mutsuki, however, in the same field of endeavor, a gas vent safety valve for batteries, discloses a discharge guide member which is inserted into the through hole of the bracket (see e.g. " a hollow cylindrical portion 26 is provided in the through-hole 11" in paragraph [42] on page 8 of Mutsuki) and has a gas discharge flow path formed in a central portion thereof (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Mutsuki), wherein a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in the gas discharge direction (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Mutsuki).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas venting device of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that it further comprises a discharge guide member which is inserted into the through hole of the bracket and has a gas discharge flow path formed in a central portion thereof, wherein a cross-sectional area of the gas discharge flow path is continuously or gradually reduced in the gas discharge direction as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 3, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Mutsuki).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 4, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall of the gas discharge flow path is concavely or convexly curved.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1) in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall of the gas discharge flow path is concavely or convexly curved (see e.g. " hollow cylindrical portion 26" in paragraph [42] on page 8 and FIGs. 1 and 2).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the gas discharge flow path has a truncated conical shape in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall of the gas discharge flow path is concavely or convexly curved as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 5, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 4 (see e.g. claim 4 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that a straight flow path having a constant cross-sectional area is formed on an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path so as to follow a truncated cone-shaped flow path.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that the gas venting device comprises a straight flow path having a constant cross-sectional area is formed on an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path so as to follow the truncated cone-shaped flow path (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas venting device of Wook et al. such that a straight flow path having a constant cross-sectional area is formed on an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path so as to follow a truncated cone-shaped flow path as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety.
Regarding Claim 6, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook does not disclose that in the gas discharge flow path, a truncated cone-shaped flow path, in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is concavely curved, and a truncated cone-shaped flow path, in which an inclined surface is convexly curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced.
Keiji, however, discloses that the gas discharge flow path comprises an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is concavely curved and convexly curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced (see e.g. FIG. 4d of Keiji).
Keiji also teaches that the flow path shape is particularly preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently (see e.g. paragraph [67] of Keiji). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. such that it comprises an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is concavely curved and convexly curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced as taught by Keiji in order to have a flow path shape which is preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently as suggested by Keiji.
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the gas discharge flow path is a truncated cone-shaped flow path.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that in the gas discharge flow path, a truncated cone-shaped flow path (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Mutsuki), in which an inclined surface is convexly curved (see e.g. FIGs. 1 and 2 of Mutsuki), as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced (see e.g. FIG. 1 of Mutsuki).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the gas discharge flow path is a truncated cone-shaped flow path as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 7, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (See e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook does not disclose that in the gas discharge flow path, a truncated cone-shaped flow path, in which an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is convexly curved, and a truncated cone-shaped flow path, in which an inclined surface is concavely curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced.
Keiji, however, discloses that the gas discharge flow path comprises an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is convexly curved and concavely curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced (see e.g. FIG. 4d of Keiji).
Keiji also teaches that the flow path shape is particularly preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently (see e.g. paragraph [67] of Keiji). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. such that it comprises an inclined surface formed on an inner wall thereof is convexly curved and concavely curved, are consecutively formed, as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced as taught by Keiji in order to have a flow path shape which is preferable for converting exhaust pressure energy into velocity energy smoothly and efficiently as suggested by Keiji.
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the gas discharge flow path is a truncated cone-shaped flow path.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that in the gas discharge flow path, a truncated cone-shaped flow path (see e.g. part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Mutsuki), in which an inclined surface is convexly curved (see e.g. FIGs. 1 and 2 of Mutsuki), as the cross-sectional area thereof is continuously reduced (see e.g. FIG. 1 of Mutsuki).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gas discharge flow path of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the gas discharge flow path is a truncated cone-shaped flow path as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 8, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (See e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that a protrusion having a screw thread is formed on an inner wall of the gas discharge flow path (see e.g. "The venting bracket 211 may be provided in the form of a plate having a through hole 211a at the center thereof and a bolt fastening hole 211d formed at the edge thereof" in paragraph [18] on page 4 and part number 211d in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (See e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook further discloses a fastening portion for fastening the discharge guide member to the bracket protrudes from an outer surface of the discharge guide member (see e.g. holes in part number 213 in FIG. 4); and
a fastening hole for screw fastening the bracket is formed in the fastening portion (see e.g. holes in part number 213 and part number 211a in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (See e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that the bracket is fastening to the discharge guide member in a screw fastening manner (See e.g. part number 213 and part number 211 in FIG. 3; these pieces are fastening together in a screw fastening manner see the bolt).
Regarding Claim 11, Wook in view of Keiji and further in view of Mutsuki discloses the gas venting device of claim 2 (See e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wook further discloses that the venting disk is positioned downstream of the discharge guide member on the gas discharge direction (see e.g. part number 212 in FIGs. 3 and 4; the venting disk is the farthest most piece within the discharge guide member). Regarding Claim 15, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery module of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the module frame.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the module frame (see e.g. part number 21 (venting disc) in contact with part number 1 (inner surface of frame) via part number 26 in FIG. 1).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the module frame as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Regarding Claim 19, Wook in view of Keiji disclose the battery pack of claim 17 (see e.g. claim 17 rejection above).
Wook in view of Keiji does not disclose that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the battery pack case.
Mutsuki, however, discloses that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the battery pack case (see e.g. part number 21 (venting disc) in contact with part number 1 (inner surface of battery pack case) via part number 26 in FIG. 1).
Mutsuki also teaches that this type of vent allows gas to discharge quickly from the main body to the outside creating an explosion proof valve which enhances battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [4] on page 2 of Mutsuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Wook et al. in view of Keiji such that the venting disk is in contact with an inner surface of the battery pack case as taught by Mutsuki in order to enhance battery safety as suggested by Mutsuki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Skorpik, Flow of gases and steam through nozzles, February 2006
Kusunoki et al. (US-20150072184-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights