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
As part of the after final submitted 02/16/2026, no claim amendments were made. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are currently pending. Because the safety valve being maintained at a closed state to seal the inner space was a claim amendment made in response to the non-final rejection of 07/14/2025, and the arguments made in the after0final overcome the final rejection made in regards to the claim set submitted 10/03/2025, a second-action final rejection is issued herein.
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).
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.
While the pleated portion disclosed by Nitawaki functions as the secondary pressure relief device (i.e. responds at a higher pressure than a lower one as claimed), applicant is reminded that a rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice should the rearrangement not modify the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this instance, both the safety valve and the seal function to decrease an overall internal pressure of a battery case in the combined references. The order in which each component (the valve vs. the pleats) is triggered by a pressure increase is a design choice based upon the users desired outcome and does not change the mode of operation of either the valve or the pleats, or the case as a whole to respond to the pressure change.
With respect to claim 3, 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 as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 4, 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, 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 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 20120114993).
With respect to claim 2, 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 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 4-9 of response, filed 02/16/2025, with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, s see pages 4-9 of response, filed 02/16/2025, with respect to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with the rejection now including case laws In re Japikse and In re Kuhle, on that grounds that both the valve and pleats are pressure relief mechanisms designed to react to excess pressure inside the case, and the order of operations of these mechanisms is an obvious design variation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment (10/03/2025) 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 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 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727