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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/1/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks submitted 1/1/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14, 17, support for claims 1 and 19 is found in original claim 3 but without the intervening claim 2. Claim 14 is written in independent form with the previously allowable subject matter. The other amendments are to clarify the claims.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added; support is found in the figure and 0017 of the original filed specification.
Claims 3, 4, 14-18 were previously indicated as allowable.
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-13, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 212571202 U, machine translation was previously provided) in view of Waldschutz (US 12,100,854 B2).
As to claims 1 and 19, Luo discloses a battery system (figure 11) comprising a battery cell module (figure 11), comprising
a plurality of battery cell units (cylindrical battery 17),
wherein each of the battery cell units comprises a battery cell (17) and a base (1 -mounting seat main body), and
bases of adjacent ones of the battery cell units are detachably connected to each other ([0045] (dove tail inserting block and groove);
each of the bases comprises an installation slot (location of battery cell-figure 12) and,
wherein an end of the battery cell is disposed in the installation slot (figure 12), wherein each of the bases comprises a base body (1-mounting seat main body),
However, Luo et al. does not disclose a pressure relief cavity communicated with each other and the pressure relief cavity is provided with a plurality of pressure relief holes and
wherein the base body is provided with the pressure relief cavity; and
wherein the plurality of pressure relief holes are respectively disposed on side walls of the base body.
Waldshutz discloses a battery with a connector (1, basic body) for the batteries. The basic body/base includes degassing duct (14) and as seen in figure 2 the degassing duct is on the sidewall of the connector and there are at least 2 of the degassing ducts, thereby reading on the limitations of a pressure relief cavity (6-through opening) is provided with a plurality of pressure relief holes (14) on the side walls of the body. Waldshutz further teaches the degassing duct 14 can adjoin a guide surface 15 formed by the basic body 1, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, for instance, as a result of which targeted diversion of a hot gas escaping from the battery cell into the degassing duct 14 is facilitated (col. 5 lines 39-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the pressure relief cavity and degassing duct of Waldshutz to that of the body of Liu et al. because this would facilitate the escaping of the hot gas.
As to claims 2 and 20, Luo et al. discloses the battery cell module of claim 1, wherein a top surface of the base body (figure 1) is provided with a via hole (18) communicated with the pressure relief cavity (6 through opening of Waldshutz); and
wherein each of the bases comprises a plurality of side plates (side walls of the main body) connected to the base body and disposed surrounding a circumferential edge of the base body (side walls-figure 1), wherein the installation slot is defined by and the plurality of side plates, and the installation slot (where battery is inserted) is communicated with the via hole (figure 1).
As to claim 5, Modified Luo et al. the battery cell module of claim 2, wherein two opposite side plates of any two adjacent ones of the battery cell units are engaged with each other (see figure below, that depicts two cells connected via base bodies).
PNG
media_image1.png
186
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Modified Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 5, wherein the base body is a regular prism structure (figure 1), each side surface of the base body is provided with a respective one of the side plates (see figure below), a number of the side plates disposed on the base body is an even number (there are 4 side plates), a first one of the two opposite ones of the side plates is provided with a clamping block (dovetail), and a second one of the two opposite ones of the side plates (dovetail groove) is provided with a clamping slot.
PNG
media_image2.png
350
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Modified Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 6, wherein a width of the clamping slot (5) is configured to gradually ncrease radially along the battery cell toward an interior of the installation sloclamping block is matched with a shape of the clamping slot (4) see figure above also.
As to claim 8. Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 6, wherein the base body is octagon shaped but not a regular hexagonal prism structure.
It has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 9, Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 6, wherein the battery cell is cylindrical (17), side surfaces of the plurality of side plates facing the battery cell are arc-shaped surfaces matched with an outer wall of the battery cell (figure 6), and side surfaces of the plurality of side plates away from the battery cellare flat surfaces (see figure 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
166
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10. Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 9, wherein a middle portion of each of the plurality of side plates is provided with a notch with an opening facing upward and toward another end of the battery cell.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 11 and 21, Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 1, wherein the base is an integrally formed structure (figure 1- one piece design).
As to claim 12. Luo discloses the battery cell module of claim 1, but is silent to a height of the pressure relief cavity ranges from 5 mm to 20 mm.
It has been held 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 re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 13, Luo disclose the battery cell module of claim 1, but is silent to a depth of the installation slot ranges from 5 mm to 20 mm.
It has been held 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 re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that claim 3 had been indicated as allowable, however the amendment did not include the intervening claim 2, thus the newly amended claim 1 has been rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the battery cell is fixedly bonded to the installation slot; each of the bases comprises a base body and a plurality of side plates, wherein the base body is provided with the pressure relief cavity, and a top surface of the base body is provided with a via hole communicated with the pressure relief cavity; the plurality of side plates connected to the base body and disposed surrounding a circumferential edge of the base body, wherein the installation slot is defined by the top surface of the base body and the plurality of side plates, and the installation slot is communicated with the via hole; the base body comprises: a top plate, configured to support an end of the battery cell located in the installation slot; a bottom plate disposed opposite to and spaced apart from the top plate to form the pressure relief cavity between the top plate and the bottom plate, wherein the via hole is configured to penetrate through the top plate and the bottom plate; and a plurality of reinforcing blocks disposed between the top plate and the bottom plate and arranged at intervals along a circumferential direction of the via hole, wherein a respective one of the pressure relief holes is formed between any two adjacent ones of the reinforcing blocks”.
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727