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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that claims 10-18 recite(s) nominal apparatus (vehicle), in combination with product limitations encompassing those of claims 1-9. As such, there is presently no undue burden in examining these, technically, divergent statutory classes of invention. Should Applicants' amend these claims to include non-nominal apparatus, these newly added claims may be subject to restriction by original presentation.
Claim interpretation:
The limitation(s) "pressure relief" chamber in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants' by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that this term is defined in the specification as sealed space between two trays. Therefore, any sealed space between two trays comprising of any range of pressure, would corresponds to the claimed “pressure relief” chamber. This is the same reasoning for “pressure relief” opening. The examiner is interpreting to be as a hole, vent, or pathway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sampson et al. (WO 2017/004078).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 10-13, Sampson discloses a vehicle (Fig. 4) comprising a battery pack, comprising at least two layers of battery modules (415c, 420c), wherein each of the battery modules comprises cells (450p, 450n) and a tray (430n, 430p) for carrying the cells, the trays of two directly adjacent layers of the battery modules have sides, on which the cells are not arranged, arranged to face each other and connected to each other in a sealed manner (Fig. 19, [0004]: pressure fitting), and a space between the two trays defines a pressure relief chamber after being sealed, the pressure relief chamber is in communication with a pressure relief opening (Fig. 22), the tray is provided with through holes and one side, on which the cells are arranged, of the tray is in communication with the pressure relief chamber through the through holes (Fig. 19 and 21-22). Further, Sampson discloses two adjacent layers of battery modules are arranged in a first direction, the battery pack further comprises a partition (525c) arranged within the pressure relief chamber, and would therefore partitions the pressure relief chamber into a first chamber and a second chamber arranged in a first direction (Fig. 19 and 22).
Regarding to the claimed structural features of the tray as claimed, Sampson discloses the features as claimed. Please look at annotated figure 9 as set forth below.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as well as combinations of figures 19 and 21 for additional structural features.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, given that there is no structural or material difference between the claimed sealing member and the exterior of the tray, the examiner is taking the position that the outermost exterior area of the two trays that abuts to each other would corresponds to the claimed sealing member.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 15-20, please see figure 19 and 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sampson fails to disclose claims 1 and 10, wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
164
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This has been found unpersuasive. Feature-A is not recited in the claims and it appears to be an error. It appears that Feature-A should’ve been
PNG
media_image3.png
98
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Applicant recognizes that the position of the center divider 525c in Sampson is the same as that of the partition (2) in “Feature-A”. However, applicant argues that the center divider 525c in Samson plays a role in separation and coolant management in the battery module, whereas “Feature-A” uses the partition to divide the pressure relief chamber into a first chamber and a second chamber. This has been found unpersuasive. The examiner contends that Sampson does in fact uses partition to divide pressure relief chamber into two chambers (Fig. 19).
Additionally, as set forth above, the examiner took in the position that the limitation(s) "pressure relief" chamber in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants' by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that this term is defined in the specification as sealed space between two trays. Therefore, any sealed space between two trays comprising of any range of pressure, would corresponds to the claimed “pressure relief” chamber.
Moreover, applicant argues that the function of the Samson’s partition 525c and the claimed partition is different. As set forth above, Samson does disclose two chambers are created by the partition 525c. With regard that Samson discloses that the partition 525c plays a role in separation and coolant management in the battery module, in response to applicant's argument that Samson discloses a different purpose than that of the instant invention, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Alternatively, while the partition of Samson may serve different purpose from that disclosed by applicant, the claims do not structurally or compositionally distinguish over the structure that by Samson. Thus, arguments take in view of Samson regarding functionality of claimed partition is not persuasive.
As to applicant’s arguments directed to dependent claims as being patentable due to their dependency to claims 1 and 10, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is being maintained. Applicants have not separately argued the patentability of the dependent claims. Thus, dependent claims are also being rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785