DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-03-18, the following has occurred: Claims 1 has been amended; Claims 8-9 and 14-18 have been (previously) canceled; Claims 19-23 have been added.
Claims 1-7, 10-13, and 19-23 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-13, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the battery pack further comprises a gas discharge unit coupled to an inner surface of the side frame, and a second gas discharge unit coupled to an outer surface of the side frame.” Claim 1 already required, “the vent holes comprises: a first region connected to an inlet side in communication with an internal space of the pack housing; a second region connected to an outlet side in communication with an external space of the pack housing and having a cross-sectional area decreasing to the outlet side; and a boundary region located between the first region and the second region and having a curved shape.
The new amendments seem to correspond to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 and discussed at paragraphs 0070-0071 of the instant specification. The limitations concerning “first” and “second” regions with a “boundary region” as claimed, however, appear to correspond to the embodiment shown in Figs. 6A-6D, which is referred to as a distinct, “third exemplary embodiment” in paragraph 0072. Neither the instant figures nor the as-filed specification appear to disclose a mixed embodiment that includes both sets of features. There does not appear to be any reason to include both sets of features, the features being found in different embodiments as different ways of achieving similar ends. The specification does not appear to explicitly contemplate mixing such features, and there does not appear to be any implicit motivation or reasoning for including both sets of features in the same embodiment—at least over and beyond a kind of generalized, arbitrary agglomeration of redundant features, which would apply with equal force to combinations of arbitrary features found in the prior art as a whole. Claims 2-7, 10-13, and 19-23 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-03-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations found in claim 1. The Applicant’s own figures and specification do not appear to teach such a combination either.
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
Prosecution Insights