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 .
Claims Status
In response to the appeal file 05/27/2026, examiner had decided to withdraw the rejection of record. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitawaki (JP 2012228946A, presented in IDS submitted 12/08/2023, applicant’s provided translation in IDS used for reference) in view of Takagi et al. (U.S. 20080318121) and Spillman et al. (U.S. 5360678).
With respect to claims 1 and 8-9, Nitawaki discloses a power storage device (3 – battery pack) (Fig. 3) comprising:
a plurality of power storage cells (11 - batteries) ([0012]); and
a case (14 – metal case and 15 – cover) having an inner space in which the plurality of power storage cells (11) are accommodated (Fig. 1, and 3-4; [0012]), and an outer surface that defines the inner space (outer surface of 14 and 14) (Fig. 4), wherein
the outer surface of the case (14 and 15) includes a pleated portion (18 – fragile portion) that is capable of becoming elongated in response to an increase in pressure of the inner space (Fig. 4, [0012]), and
the pleated portion (18) is formed on substantially an entire periphery of the case (14 and 15) along a peripheral direction of the case (14 and 15) (Fig. 4).
Nitawaki does not disclose of a safety valve configured to maintain in a closed state or bring the inner space into communication with an outside of the case.
Takagi discloses a power storage device (1) comprising a case (13 – case and 14 – lid) (Fig. 1) and teaches the case (13 and 14) comprises a safety valve (16a – breaker valve) (Fig. 1), and that the safety valve (16a) is configured to communicate the outside of the case with the inside of the case at 1 to 10 MPa (thus reading on claims 8-9), but otherwise remains close to separate an inside of the vase (13 and 14) with an outside of the case ([0055]; Fig. 2). Takagi further teaches that this allows for the release of gas should the internal pressure of the case become too high ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a safety valve as taught by Takagi to the case disclosed by Nitawaki in order to allow for the release of gas should the internal pressure of the case become too high.
It is currently claimed that the pleated portion becomes elongated at second pressure, which is smaller than the first pressure at which the valve response. However, the pleated portion disclosed by modified Nitawaki functions as the secondary pressure relief device (i.e. responds at a higher pressure than a lower one as claimed).
Spillman discloses a power storage device (battery) consisting of a pleated portion (30 – bellows) and a safety valve (32 – vent) (Fig. 1) and teaches that the safety valve (32) is provided to relieve pressure inside the battery if a net pressure build up occurs that is greater than that which can be compensated for by the pleated portion (30) (Col. 6, L 36-38), thus the pleated portion responding at a second pressure, smaller than a first pressure at which the safety valve responds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the pressures at which pleated portion and safety valve disclosed by modified Nitawaki could be substituted so that the pleated portion responds at a lower pressure and the safety valve responds at a higher pressure as taught by Spillman as a rationale which supports a conclusion of obviousness includes a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In this instance, substituting which pressure relief mechanism responds before the other would still obtain the predictable result of pressure control within the battery.
With respect to claim 3, modified Nitawaki discloses the case (14 and 15) has a first member (14) including a first flange (16 – annular connection portion, bottom) and a second member (15) including a second flange (16 – top) joined to the first flange (16 – bottom) (Fig. 3, [0016]) and
the pleated portion (18) is formed in the second member (15) and, I a non-elongated state of the pleated portion, extends in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the second flange (16 – top) (Fig. 4, [0016]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitawaki in view of Takagi and Spillman as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 4, modified Nitawaki discloses the case (14 and 15) has a first member (14) including a first flange (16 – annular connection portion, bottom) and a second member (15) including a second flange (16 – top) joined to the first flange (16 – bottom) (Fig. 3, [0016]) and
the pleated portion (18) is formed in the second member (15) so as to extend in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the second flange (16 – top) when the pleated portion is in a non-elongated state (Fig. 4, [0016]), not in a direction along the extending direction of the second flange. However, changing the shape of the orientation of the pleats (applicant’s figs. 5 and 6 vs. fig. 8) does not change the mode of operation of the case and is not significant. Regardless of the orientation of the pleats, the case is meant to expand due to excess pressure, thus leading to an increase in volume of the case. Therefore, the claimed change in shape of the orientation of the pleats is an obvious design variation (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, modified Nitawaki discloses the cover (15) includes a pleated portion (18) that can be deformed in the increasing direction of the internal volume, and has a shape that easily swells ([0013]), but does not explicitly disclose the ratio of increase of the inner space (volume) is 0.1% to 100% or that the ratio of increase of the surface area of the case is 0.1% to 100%.. However, given that these claimed ranges are extremely broad, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that by disclosing an overall change in internal volume as modified Nitawaki does, it would inherently fall in the claimed ranges. Also, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, as the claimed ranges are very broad, it is clear that the relative change in dimensions is not limiting, and therefore, the actual change in ratio of the inner space or the surface area of the case would not perform differently over the claimed range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitawaki in view of Takagi and Spillman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 20120114993).
With respect to claim 2, modified Nitawaki discloses the case (14 and 15) includes a cover member (15) in the outer surface (Fig. 4), , and
the pleated portion (18) is formed in the cover member (15) (Fig. 4).
Nitawaki does not explicitly disclose the presence of electrode terminals, however by disclosing a battery pack (3) including a system of batteries (11), it is inherent that the batteries (11) would have to include terminals in order to operate. However, Nitawaki does not disclose the orientation of the batteries, therefore does not disclose that terminals face the cover.
Park discloses a power storage device (101- - battery module) (Fig. 1) and teaches the power storage device includes battery cells (20) with terminals (21 and 22) that face a case cover (123). Park further teaches that this allows for gas that exists the cells (20) via a gas exhaust member (27) to interact with the valve (40) in the cover (123) (Fig. 2, [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the terminals of the battery cells disclosed by modified Nitawaki so that the terminals of the cells were facing the cover as taught by Park in order to allow for gas exiting the cells to interact with the valve of the cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5 of the pre-brief appeal conference request, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection using 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of Nitawaki, Tagaki, and Spillman has been entered. In said rejection, Spillman is relied upon to teach that it is already known in the art that pleats in a battery can respond to a lower pressure threshold, followed by a valve response at a higher pressure threshold, thus substituting the pressures at which the pleated portions and valves react in the primary piece of prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights