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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 10 are amended and claims 14-17 are new, submitted on 3/27/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-17 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude (WO201912164 A1, IDS of 2/13/2025, see English equivalent US 202100749600 A1 for citation) in view of and Jiang (US 20200112010 A1), and further in view of Song (US 20110151292 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stude discloses a battery device (8, battery FIG. 3) comprising: a casing (9 housing, FIG.3) , a battery cell pack (battery cells 12, FIG. 3) located within the casing, and a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant (heat insulating element 1 contains fibre layer 5, [0071] and FIGs. 1A-1C and 3) located within the casing and placed around the battery cell pack to isolate the casing from the battery cell pack (FIG. 3), wherein the fabric encapsulant forms an envelope comprising an outlet (outlet 23, FIG. 3) coupled to a ventilation space (from outlet 23 to the outside of the housing 9, FIG. 3) for ventilation of gases and/or heat generated upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack (preventing explosive release of heat and/or fragments, [0041]).
Stude further discloses the casing comprises a vent (outlet 23, [0128] and FIG. 3) arranged through a side of the casing, wherein the outlet is coupled to the ventilation space via the vent.
While Stude discloses the outlet 23 may have a filter 24 for gases and/or a valve 25, in particular a one-way valve and it can be ensured that gases can escape from the battery 8 but that no gases can enter the battery 8 ([0130] and FIG. 3), reducing the risk of explosion ([0129]), Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation space includes a ventilation bag coupled to the outlet via the vent and arranged outside of the casing.
Jiang teaches a similar desire to prevent occurrence of battery explosion ([0003]), and to overcome the problem of an explosion-proof valve fails ([0005]), a gas bag (63, FIG. 5) is further mounted on an upper surface of the explosion-proof membrane (61, [0014] and FIG. 5) which is a part of the explosion-proof valve (6, [0007] FIG. 5). The gas bag of Jiang corresponds to the ventilation bag in the claim and it appears to be coupled to the outlet via the vent (FIGs. 5 and 6 ) and be arranged outside of the casing (FIG. 5).
Since Stude has a ventilation space through the valve 25 installed at the outlet 23, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a gas bag in the same manner as taught by Jiang to be arranged outside of the casing, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack, and thus arrive at the claimed “the ventilation space includes a ventilation bag coupled to the outlet via the vent and arranged outside of the casing” with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag is arranged inside a compartment at a side of the casing.
Jiang teaches the gas bag 63 is mounted on an upper surface of the explosion-proof membrane 61 ([0052] and FIG. 5), and a peripheral edge of the gas bag 63 is glued on the base body 60 ([0053] and inside a compartment (inside the pressure relieve hole 62, [0052]) and at a side (upper side ) of the casing (FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to readily recognize that the ventilation bag is arranged inside a compartment formed inside the pressure relive hole 62 as taught by Jiang’s FIG. 5, which corresponds to the compartment formed by the outlet of 23 of Stude.
Thus it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the ventilation bag in the outlet 23 of Stude as taught by Jiang, arriving at the claimed limitation “the ventilation bag is arranged inside a compartment at a side of the casing” in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag comprises a flame-retardant and/or high-temperature resistant fabric.
Jiang further teaches the gas bag 63 needs to have high temperature resistance ([0052]) and a material of the gas bag 63 can be PA among other choices ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose PA from the finite list for the ventilation bag material, which is a typical fabric material commonly understood in the art as polyamide (PA). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect the most commonly known synthetic fabric material in PA category, such as nylon, would be a successful bag material for Jiang’s gas bag 63, especially in view of the shape of the bag shown in FIG. 5 of Jiang, thus arriving at the claimed limitation, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Modified Stude has included the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag both made of fabric material. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag being comprised by the same piece of fabric.
Song, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery capable of facilitating the exhaustion of internal gas ([0003]) comprising: a pouch type outer casing 110, a battery cell pack 100 located within the casing 110 (FIG. 1), a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant (nylon film for third layer 110C of outer casing 110, [0037]), and the outer casing 110 has a first space 115 and a second space 116 communicated via a gas passage 140 ([0047] and FIGs. 2-9), in which the casing portion surrounding the first space 115 corresponds to a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the casing portion surrounding the second space 116 corresponds to a ventilation bag of the claim, and the casing portion forming the first space 115 and the second space 116 are comprised by the same piece of fabric (nylon film for third layer 110C of outer casing 110, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the gas bag 63 taught by Jiang with the same piece of fabric in the same fashion as taught by Song’s casing portion forming the first space 115 and the second space 116 with the same nylon film fabric in order to facilitate the exhaustion of internal gas, reducing the risk of explosion as desired by Stude, thus reasonably arriving at the claimed limitation “wherein the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag are comprised by the same piece of fabric” without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. Modified Stude further discloses the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant comprises a flame-retardant and/or high-temperature resistant fabric (5 made of glass fibres or silica fibres, [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. Modified Stude further discloses the outlet 23 may have a filter 24 for gases and/or a valve 25, in particular a one-way valve and it can be ensured that gases can escape from the battery 8 but that no gases can enter the battery 8 ([0130] and FIG. 3), which inherently teaches that the outlet is hermetically coupled to the vent, because no gases can enter the battery.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag is expandable (claim 6); or the ventilation bag is configured to expand upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack (claim 7).
Jiang further teaches the gas bag have certain elasticity and may be quickly opened to contain the high-temperature combustible gas and has a compressed shape in a normal state, and when the battery is abnormal and the pressure of the battery is released, the gas bag 63 is open as shown in FIG. 6 ([0052]), which teaches the ventilation bag is expandable. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ventilation bag expandable (claim 6); and the ventilation bag is configured to expand upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack (claim 7), as taught by Jiang, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Regarding claim 9, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag is configured to open upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Jiang further teaches the gas bag have certain elasticity and may be quickly opened to contain the high-temperature combustible gas and has a compressed shape in a normal state, and when the battery is abnormal and the pressure of the battery is released, the gas bag 63 is open as shown in FIG. 6 ([0052]), which teaches the ventilation bag is expandable. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ventilation bag to be configured to open upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack, as taught by Jiang, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Regarding claim 10, Stude discloses a battery device (8, battery FIG. 3) comprising: a casing (9 housing, FIG.3) , a battery cell pack (battery cells 12, FIG. 3) located within the casing, and a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant (heat insulating element 1 contains fibre layer 5, [0071] and FIGs. 1A-1C and 3) located within the casing and placed around the battery cell pack to isolate the casing from the battery cell pack (FIG. 3), wherein the fabric encapsulant forms an envelope comprising an outlet (outlet 23, FIG. 3) coupled to a ventilation space (from outlet 23 to the outside of the housing 9, FIG. 3) for ventilation of gases and/or heat generated upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack (preventing explosive release of heat and/or fragments, [0041]).
While Stude further discloses the outlet 23 may have a filter 24 for gases and/or a vale 25, in particular a one-way valve and it can be ensured that gases can escape from the battery 8 but that no gases can enter the battery 8 ([0130] and FIG. 3), reducing the risk of explosion ([0129]), Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation space includes a ventilation bag coupled to the outlet via the vent and arranged inside the casing.
Jiang teaches a similar desire to prevent occurrence of battery explosion ([0003]), and to overcome the problem of an explosion-proof valve fails ([0005]), a gas bag (63, FIG. 5) is further mounted on an upper surface of the explosion-proof membrane (61, [0014] and FIG. 5) which is a part of the explosion-proof valve (6, [0007] FIG. 5) and the gas bag has a compressed shape in a normal state ([0052]). The gas bag of Jiang corresponds to the ventilation bag in the claim and it appears to be coupled to the outlet via the vent (FIGs. 5 and 6 ) and appears be arranged inside of the casing (within Shell 2 under valve cover 631, [0036] and FIG. 7).
Since Stude has a ventilation space through the valve 25 installed at the outlet 23, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a gas bag in the manner as taught by Jiang in FIG. 7 to be inside shell 2 under valve cover 631, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack, and thus arrive at the claimed “the ventilation space includes an expandable ventilation bag coupled to the outlet via the vent and arranged inside the casing” with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Stude has included a ventilation space being defined by or delimited by a rear side of the casing (top side of the casing, FIG. 3), lateral sides of the outlet 23 facing the battery cell pack, and a side of the battery cell pack facing the rear side of the casing (FIG. 3).
Modified Stude’s lateral side of the outlet 23 are formed by an opening on the top side, not a lateral sides of the casing adjacent to the rear side (top side FIG. 3) of the casing.
Song, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery capable of facilitating the exhaustion of internal gas ([0003]) comprising: a pouch type outer casing 110, a battery cell pack 100 located within the casing 110 (FIG. 1), a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant (nylon film for third layer 110C of outer casing 110, [0037]), and the outer casing 110 has a first space 115 and a second space 116 communicated via a gas passage 140 ([0047] and FIGs. 2-9), in which the spaces 115 and 116 corresponds to the ventilation space in the claim, such that the ventilation space is defined or delimited by a rear side of the casing (opposite side of the terminal , FIG. 3), lateral sides of the casing adjacent to the rear side of the casing and facing the battery cell pack, and a side of the battery cell pack facing the rear side of the casing (FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ventilation space of modified Stude by addition of a similar ventilation space 116 taught by Song’s FIG. 3, in order to facilitate the exhaustion of internal gas, reducing the risk of explosion as desired by Stude, thus reasonably arriving at the claimed limitation “the ventilation space is defined or delimited by a rear side of the casing, lateral sides of the casing adjacent to the rear side of the casing and facing the battery cell pack, and a side of the battery cell pack facing the rear side of the casing”, without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag is in an unexpanded state inside the casing and configured to expand upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Jiang teaches a gas bag 63 is mounted on an upper surface of the explosion-proof membrane 61 ([0052] and FIG. 5), and a peripheral edge of the gas bag 63 is glued on the base body 60 FIG. 5) has a compressed shape in a normal state ([0052]), the explosion proof valve 6 further includes a valve cover 631 ([0036] and FIG. 7) covering the explosion-proof valve 6 (FIG. 7). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to readily recognize that the ventilation bag could be arranged in a compressed shape in an unexpanded state inside the casing. Jiang further teaches the gas bag have certain elasticity and may be quickly opened to contain the high-temperature combustible gas and when the battery is abnormal and the pressure of the battery is released, the gas bag 63 is open as shown in FIG. 6 with inflatable volume ([0052] [0055]), which teaches the ventilation bag is configured to expand upon the malfunction of the battery cell pack. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ventilation bag to be in an unexpanded state inside the casing and configured to expand upon said malfunction of the battery cell pack, as taught by Jiang, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Regarding claim 12, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose a side of the casing is configured to open upon expansion of the ventilation bag such that the ventilation bag can expand outside of the casing.
Jiang further teaches when the battery is abnormal, the improved explosion-proof valve 6 maybe opened from the explosion-proof notch 612 under the set opening pressure ([0056] and FIG. 6), which teaches a side of the casing, at least the valve cover 631 ([0036] and FIG. 7) covering the explosion-proof valve 6 (FIG. 7) portion, is configured to open upon expansion of the ventilation bag; and FIG. 6 appears to show that the ventilation bag can expand outside of the casing ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a side of the casing is configured to open upon expansion of the ventilation bag such that the ventilation bag can expand outside of the casing, as taught by Jiang, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Regarding claim 15, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above.
Modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag comprises a flame-retardant and/or high-temperature resistant fabric and the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag are comprised by the same piece of fabric.
Jiang further teaches the gas bag 63 needs to have high temperature resistance ([0052]) and a material of the gas bag 63 can be PA among other choices ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose PA from the finite list for the ventilation bag material, which is a typical fabric material commonly understood in the art as polyamide (PA). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect the most commonly known synthetic fabric material in PA category, such as nylon, would be a successful bag material for Jiang’s gas bag 63, especially in view of the shape of the bag shown in FIG. 5 of Jiang, thus arriving at the claimed limitation, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Modified Stude has included the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag both made of fabric material. However, modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag being comprised by the same piece of fabric.
Song, further teaches nylon film for third layer 110C of outer casing 110, [0037]), and the outer casing 110 forming the first space 115 and a second space 116 are comprised by the same piece of fabric nylon film of layer 110C ([0037] [0048] and FIG. 2),
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the gas bag 63 taught by Jiang with the same piece of fabric as taught by Song’s casing material with the same nylon film fabric in order to facilitate the exhaustion of internal gas, reducing the risk of explosion as desired by Stude, thus reasonably arriving at the claimed limitation “wherein the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag are comprised by the same piece of fabric” without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. Modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the ventilation bag comprises an outlet.
However, Jiang further teaches the gas bag 63 is opened to form a gas storage space 630, and when the battery is abnormal, the improved explosion-proof valve 6 may be opened from the explosion-proof notch 612 under the set opening pressure, and the battery pressure of the battery is released so as to prevent battery explosion ([0056] and FIG. 6), and the explosion-proof valve 6 is opened to release the pressure thereby effectively preventing occurrence of combustion or explosion inside the battery ([0058] and FIG. 8), which inherently teaches the ventilation bag necessarily comprises an outlet (claim 16). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an outlet on the ventilation bag in order to be able to successfully release the pressure preventing battery explosion when the battery is abnormal.
Since the ventilation bag is included within the casing, it would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the casing comprises a vent and the outlet of the ventilation bag is coupled to the vent of the casing (claim 17), in order to facilitate releasing the pressure preventing battery explosion when the battery is abnormal.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude (WO201912164 A1, IDS of 2/13/2025, see English equivalent US 202100749600 A1 for citation) in view of and Jiang (US 20200112010 A1) and Song (US 20110151292 A1), as applied to claim 12, further in view of Stokes (US 20120114983 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Stude discloses all of the limitation as set forth above. While modified Stude desires no gases can enter the battery 8 ([0130] and FIG. 3), and reducing the risk of explosion ([0129]), modified Stude does not explicitly disclose the side of the casing is pivotably attached to another side or the remaining of the casing via pivoting means.
Stokes teaches a battery casing (container 42, [0032] and FIG. 5) comprising a lid 70 and a vessel 46 coupled by a hinge 72 ([0032] and FIG. 5), in order to reduce passage of external substances into the vessel 46, and prevent passage of air fluid, and/or solids into vessel 46 ([0033]), which teaches the side of the casing (lid 70) is pivotably attached to the remaining of the casing via pivoting means (hinge 72). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the hinge coupling method for the casing of modified Stude in order to reduce passage of external substances into the battery as taught by Stokes, such that to ensure no gases can enter the battery reducing the risk of explosion, as desired by Stude.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 1 and 10 filed on 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
6/25/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
