DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-02-27, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 14 have been amended; Claims 4, 5, 11, 15, and 17-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, and 16 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim now requires “A battery box, comprising: a box frame, a heat management component, an outer plate, a protective cover, and a balance film.” The protective cover and balance film are properly components of the balance valve discussed much later. While they are parts of the battery box because the balance valve is part of the battery box, it is not clear why they are listed separately, at the beginning of the claim, away from the other limitations discussing the balance valve body. The claim should be amended with an eye to conceptual clarity upon first reading. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regards as the invention.
Claim 13 requires “a protective cover” still, despite claim 1 being amended to require a protective cover. It is unclear whether this is supposed to be a second protective cover or not. The claim has been interpreted as redundant, requiring only the protective cover of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN 213989032 to Qu, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Lin (CN 109904367 to Lin et al., the Office to provided machine English translation), with reference to Caliskan (US Patent No. 11,745,573 to Caliskan et al.) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, Qu teaches:
a battery box 100 comprising a box frame (Fig. 1, page 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
372
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
574
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a support plate 1 arranged/disposed on a bottom of the box frame, and so “disposed below” the box frame comprising the sidewalls of the frame, the support plate in thermal contact with the cells in the battery box, and therefore interpreted as a “heat management component” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase, further configured to adjust temperature of a battery insofar as it is in thermal contact with an outer plate, and an outer plate 2 arranged adjacent to the heat management component and configured to cover the heat management component (i.e. support plate 1 in Fig. 2) on the box frame (page 3)
wherein in Fig. 3 the battery box 100 shows sides with ledges for holding the supporting plate 1, and the battery box sidewalls interface with receiving grooves of the inner wall of the bottom plate 2 to form sealed cavity 3 (p. 4, ¶ 6-7)
PNG
media_image3.png
794
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the sealed cavity 3 being sealingly closed by the outer plate 2, and the heat management component 1, as well as the side walls of the battery box and the supporting ledges (Fig. 3, p. 3)
The Office notes that the limitation: “the outer plate is sealingly fixed with the heat management component, [and] the heat management component and the outer plate are sealingly fixed with the box frame” appears to draw from ¶ 0090 of the instant PGPUB US 2023/0123699 which says: “It [i.e. the outer plate] is first sealingly fixed with the heat management component 200, and then they, as a whole, are sealingly fixed with the box frame.” That is, the limitation in its broadest reasonable interpretation, consonant with the as-filed specification, requires only that an outer plate is fixed to a heat management component, and they, as a whole, are fixed to a box frame, to form a sealed cavity.
Qu clearly shows a sealed cavity 3. It also clearly shows a box frame, comprising e.g. side walls that extend along the battery module. In Fig. 2 the sidewalls appear to form a unitary structure with the supporting plate 1, which the Office identifies with the heat management component. It is, however, unclear what cross-section is being taken or what features are obscured by Fig. 2. Both Figs. 1 and 3 of Qu appear to show that the box frame walls have ledges, which either hold a bottom panel of the battery modules or hold a support plate directly, as seemingly depicted in Fig. 2, suggesting that the frame, support plate 1, and outer plate 2 are all separate components that form sealed cavity 3. It is perhaps unclear whether a unitary frame/support as depicted in one interpretation of Fig. 2 reads on a “heat management component” that is “sealingly fixed” with a “box frame.”
Insofar as Qu does not clearly and unambiguously show that the plate 1 holding the battery modules and interfacing with the sidewalls of the frame in Fig. 2, is “sealing fixed with the box frame” at the same time as being “sealingly fixed” with the outer plate 2, it would have been obvious to provide the bottom plate 1 as a separate piece sealingly fixed with the box frame sidewalls depicted in Fig. 3. As evidence of ordinary skill in the art, the Office points to Caliskan, which shows alternative embodiment for getting a support plate to interface with a box frame having side walls in Figs. 3-4.
PNG
media_image4.png
860
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
866
674
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Caliskan is taken to show that a support plate can be provided separately from a halo/box frame of sidewalls, either being supports by ledges on the sidewalls, or by forming an attachment point for the sidewalls that extend beyond the support plates. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a support plate 1 (i.e. “heat management component) that is fixed to outer plate 2, and fixing both to the sidewalls/ledges of the remaining box frame as shown and suggested in Figs. 1 and 3 of Qu, since this was a conventional variation known in the art (as evidenced by Caliskan) and implied but not explicitly shown in Qu.
Qu further teaches:
a balance valve configured to interface between the cavity 3 and the external environment on an “inflation interface” (page 4) of the cavity, which can include the outer plate 2, and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a valve requires a fixing hole for fixing it in the wall (pages 2-3, Fig. 2)
the balance valve being configured to balance pressures at whatever pressure the user determines, including equalizing inner and outer pressures (page 3)
Qu does not teach:
the balance valve body provided with a ventilation hole, the ventilation hole and the fixing hole together form a ventilation channel, and the ventilation hole is offset relative to an axis of the fixing hole, such that the ventilation channel is bent within the balance valve body
a protective cover arranged within the cavity covering an end of the balance valve away from the outer plate, and a balance film covering the ventilation hole and attached above it on the balance valve body by thermo-compression welding
Lin, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a balance valve for a battery pack, teaches a balance valve body for inserting into a ventilation hole, the valve body provided with a plurality of ventilation holes in the center within a protective grille 37, at least some of which are offset relative to a central axis of the fixing hole, and wherein the ventilation is bent within the balance valve body by passing through the grille and then being directed outwards horizontally through holes 14 (p. 2, Figs. 4 and 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
408
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
542
550
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Lin further teaches a protective cover 1 arranged over the hole to protect a film 2 provided over the ventilation hole, the film being attached by a thermo-compression welding method (p. 3, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to provide such a valve in the box of Qu, which references only generic balance valves, since Lin teaches its use in a battery box. It further would have been obvious to orient the cover upwards, within the cavity, as one of only two options.A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Qu teaches:
disposing a valve on the battery box
Qu does not teach exactly where. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide any number of valves along a battery box of sufficient size, including valves near the center, or a plurality of valves at ends of the box, since the duplication and rearrangement of valves ultimately all serves the same purpose of allowing for pressure equalization absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, Lin teaches:
a snap-fit upper portion and a threaded fixing structure
Lin does not teach:
snap fit-fastener fixing structure with insertion hooks that are thinner than the hole
While Lin teaches a threaded fixing structure on the body 3, it would have been obvious to use a snap-fit structure, which are conventionally provided with hooks thinner than the hole, in order to fit therethrough. See e.g. previously cited Pflueger (US Patent No. 10,539,246) which teaches a snapping valve, for evidence of ordinary skill in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Lin teaches:
a threaded structure extending along a periphery of the ventilation holes towards the fixing plate, and cooperating with a complementary threaded structure to screw the balance valve into its intended position
It would have been obvious to provide threading, as Lin does, to attach the balance valves, since Qu teaches generic balance valves known in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Lin teaches:
a sealing gasket 4 arranged between the balance valve and the outer plate for sealingly connecting the balance valve and the outer plate (Fig. 7)
wherein the compression of the sealing member is a results effective variable that can be tuned to establish a consistent and reliable seal (p. 4)
It would have been obvious to provide a sealing gasket, as Lin does, to attach the balance valves, since Qu teaches generic balance valves known in the art. It further would have been obvious to select a compression level within the claimed range, since Lin teaches it is a results effective variable, absent evidence of unexpected results for the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 12, Lin teaches:
ventilation grooves 14 around the ventilation hole at a side of the valve body and forming a ventilation channel with the ventilation hole (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 13, Lin teaches:
a protective cover 1 with positioning protrusions underneath the top surface, provided at intervals around the ventilation hole and forming ventilation grooves (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to provide a cover, as Lin does, since Qu teaches generic balance valves known in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 14, Lin teaches:
a gas permeable membrane of waterproof e-PTFE
Lin does not explicitly teach a “composite” but it teaches a membrane that achieves the same purpose. Composite membranes were commercially available in the art, and would have been obvious substitutes, absent evidence that the composite membrane offers unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 16, Lin teaches:
wherein the sealing gasket is in the shape of a ring, with an inner circumference smaller than the circumference of the gas-permeable film, and wherein the protective barrier 32, as part of the sealing structure, is out farther than the gas-permeable film circumference
Lin does not explicitly teach the sealing ring profile advancing from inside the membrane to outside the membrane profile, but this particular relationship does not change the function of the parts. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A. The membrane circumference might be smaller to not extend out past the outer circumference of the seal, or the seal might be thicker, as these are obvious design variants that do not impact the function of the balance valve. See, e.g. previously cited Pflueger for ordinary skill in the art in this regard.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN 213989032 to Qu, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Lin (CN 109904367 to Lin et al., the Office to provided machine English translation), in further view of Pillai (Pillai, Jonathan D. “Development of a Rating Scheme for Snap-Fit Materials Based on Short-Term Post-Yield Recovery.” Master’s Thesis at The Ohio State University, 2002).
Regarding Claim 7, Qu does not explicitly teach:
the strain value of a snap fit fastening portion
Strain values for snap-fit fasteners are results effective variables, subject to routine engineering calculation and decision. Wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in e.g. strain values involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. Pillai teaches commercial polymers used in a variety of snap-fit fasteners that have recoverable strain values of greater than 20% (Fig. 2.1, page 8, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide a snap-fit fastener with a strain value of greater than 15% since such values were known in the art.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted 2026-02-27 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the amendments, the rejections have been reformulated to rely on Lin, which teaches a balance valve substantially similar to the instant one.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723