DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended; support for claim 1 is found in [0030-0032] and Figure 3.
Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled.
Claim 7 has been added with support found in [0030] of the instant specification. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu (JPS 60246573 A-as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Nasu discloses an assembly of a battery pack and a charger for charging the battery pack, the battery pack comprising (Figures 1-6; rechargeable electric apparatus with rechargeable batteries 4):
a battery (Figures 1-6; rechargeable electric apparatus with rechargeable batteries 4); and
A case accommodating the battery (Figures 1-6; casing 6),
The case including:
An exhaust hole penetrating the case (Figures 1-6; vent valve formed in the casing 6 when the piston 18 and protrusion portion 19 is moved);
A partition wall being in a closed bottomed tubular shape, the partition wall surrounding the exhaust hole within the case (Figure 2; dividing wall 17/22 is read as the partition wall);
A sealing member disposed within a tube defined by the partition wall, the sealing member closing the exhaust hole (Figure 2, piston 18 that seals the battery at the exhaust hole); and
A biasing member disposed within a tube defined by the partition wall and biasing the sealing member towards the exhaust hole (Spring 22 Figure 1-6), wherein:
The partition wall includes a vent hole defining a gas exhaust path together with the exhaust hole (Figures 1-6; case having a hole 16 to define an vent path);
The sealing member is configured to move inward when pressed from outside of the case to open the exhaust hole (Figure 5, piston moves when pressed from outside to open the exhaust hole); and
The charger comprises (Figure 1 and 3; charger is shown):
A pedestal on which the battery pack is to be placed (Figures 1-6; battery is placed on the top surface of the charger);
A gas inlet hole disposed in the pedestal at a location overlapping the exhaust hole of the battery pack (Figure 3; window 23);
an exhaust duct being a vent path disposed in the pedestal and communicating with the gas inlet hole, for guiding the gas exhaust from the battery pack to outside of the charger (Figures 1-6; gas is released from the storage battery 1 to the charger device and then outside to prevent a buildup of gases and thus this pathway is read as the discharge pathway of the pedestal of the charger),
A pressing part protruding from the gas inlet hole, the pressing part configured to press the sealing member of the battery pack (Figure 3-6; Hook 9 presses the protruding part 19 of the piston 18), wherein,
An opening in communication with the exhaust duct is formed on a side surface of the charger (Figure 3, window 23’ formed in the side surface of the charger), and
When the battery pack is placed on the charger, a surface of the case, on which the exhaust hose is formed contacts a surface of the charger, on which the gas inlet hole is formed without a gap formed therebetween (Figure 2 and 4; connecting portion case 6 and retaining piece 14 are provided on the surface of the charger). Examiner notes that this limitation is a conditional limitation dependent upon the battery pack being placed on the charger with the phrase “when” thus this limitation is considered an optional limitation. Nevertheless, the primary reference Nasu discloses the limitation of the battery pack being placed on the charger that contacts the charger on which the gas inlet is formed without a gap formed therebetween.
Nasu is silent with respect to a plurality of battery cells being used in the device, however, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to duplicate the number of battery cells such that multiple battery cells are provided in the device as a simple duplication of the battery cell. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious in view of the disclosure of Nasu. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu (JPS 60246573 A-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0079426 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nasu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nasu discloses wherein a vent is formed, however, is silent with respect to a mesh structure for the vent.
Chen discloses a lithium ion battery having a gas release structure. Chen discloses wherein the battery cover has a pressure relief valve comprising a mesh structure such that only gases and vapor can pass through the mesh structure and thus ignition of the flammable gases and solid particles passing through the vent can be avoided and thus improving the safety of the battery (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the vent of Nasu to be a mesh cover vent that allows for gases to pass through the vent while restricting solid particles and preventing the ignition of flammable gases as taught by Chen to improve the safety of the battery pack device.
Regarding claim 5, modified Nasu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nasu discloses wherein a vent is formed, however, is silent with respect to a mesh structure for the vent within the exhaust duct.
Chen discloses a lithium ion battery having a gas release structure. Chen discloses wherein the battery cover has a pressure relief valve comprising a mesh structure such that only gases and vapor can pass through the mesh structure and thus ignition of the flammable gases and solid particles passing through the vent can be avoided and thus improving the safety of the battery (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the vent/exhaust duct vent of Nasu to be a mesh cover vent that allows for gases to pass through the vent while restricting solid particles and preventing the ignition of flammable gases as taught by Chen to improve the safety of the battery pack device. Thus the modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 5 as the mesh style vent would prevent fire or ignition from occurring.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nasu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nasu discloses wherein a vent is formed, however, is silent with respect to a metal mesh structure for the vent within the opening.
Chen discloses a lithium ion battery having a gas release structure. Chen discloses wherein the battery cover has a pressure relief valve comprising a mesh structure such that only gases and vapor can pass through the mesh structure and thus ignition of the flammable gases and solid particles passing through the vent can be avoided and thus improving the safety of the battery (abstract) and wherein the mesh can be a metal mesh provided in the vent hole ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the vent/exhaust duct vent of Nasu to be a metal mesh cover vent that allows for gases to pass through the vent while restricting solid particles and preventing the ignition of flammable gases as taught by Chen to improve the safety of the battery pack device. Thus the modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 7 as the metal mesh style vent would prevent fire or ignition from occurring and would be provided in the opening.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu (JPS 60246573 A-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kountz et al. (US 2016/0365553 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nasu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nasu discloses wherein the charger releases gases from the battery to the outside of the battery/charger, however, is silent with respect to the exhaust duct having a flam-antichloristic agent.
Kountz discloses a lithium ion battery having improved safety against combustion and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Kountz discloses combustion abatement agents such as sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, bisulfate and bisulfite ([0076-0077], abstract; examiner notes that sodium bisulfite and potassium bisulfite are antichloristic agents) that can be used to stop combustion within a battery to improve the safety of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the sodium bisulfite or potassium bisulfite material within the exhaust duct of Nasu to prevent the exhausted gases of the battery of Nasu from igniting within the exhaust region of the charger of Nasu to improve the safety of the battery and prevent from an ignition or fire from occurring when charging the battery. Examiner notes that the sodium bisulfite or potassium bisulfite materials are both flame-antichloristic materials and thus would read on the claimed invention in view of the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record. The rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot as Nasu discloses a window 23 is formed and the opening of the casing can be seen in at least the area in which 14 extends from the casing and thus would not be formed without a gap as 13 can be part of the opening of the casing. Examiner reiterates that the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakaue et al. (US 2007/0216350 A1)-discloses a charging device such as a charging device for a battery.
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights