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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10, 225 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 10 are amended and claim 13 is cancelled, submitted on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (Ln17-18) and claim 10 (Ln13-14) both recite the limitation “wherein the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together”. The term “are formed together” is neither defined by the claim 1 or claim 10, nor does the specification provide a clear definition for it, except for the specification provides on page 5, an exemplary description including permissive language, quote “In other words, the encapsulation and the ventilation bag may be comprised by the same piece of fabric(s)” (Examiner-added emphasis). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because it is unclear whether the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag recited in claim 1 or in claim 10 are made of one single piece of fabric or pieces from a same piece of fabric; further if they are formed together through sewing, creating seams, bonding via adhesive/heat, or through other methods like thermal welding or molding etc., depending on the desired strength, finish, and function etc.
For examination purposes, the recitation “wherein the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together” is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), such that any format/fashion of forming the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant and the ventilation bag together including but not limited to made of the same piece of fabric(s), or formed together by methods of, e.g., sewing, creating seams, bonding via adhesive/heat, or through other methods like thermal welding or molding etc., would be considered as reading on the claim limitation.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7 and 9 are rejected as dependent claims of the base claim 1, for incorporating the indefinite term “are formed together”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected as dependent claims of the base claim 10, for incorporating the indefinite term “are formed together”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-12 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 Jiang (US 20200112010 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.
{Examiner notes: The amended claim 1 further recites “wherein the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together”, which is considered as a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. [MPEP 2113 (I)]. }
Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious over Stude in view of Jiang as set forth above.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes that since modified Stude has included the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag both made of fabric material, a skilled artisan would readily envisage using sewing, creating seams, bonding with adhesive or heat, as commonly known methods to make the flame-retardant fabric encapsulate and the ventilation bag be formed together. Thus the limitation “wherein the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together” is also obvious to meet.
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 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) 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 of the casing” with a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
{Examiner notes: The amended claim 10 further recites “wherein the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together”, which is considered as a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. [MPEP 2113 (I)]. }
Therefore, claim 10 is rendered obvious over Stude in view of Jiang as set forth above.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes that since the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are both made of fabric material in modified Stude, a skilled artisan would readily envisage using sewing, creating seams, bonding with adhesive or heat, as commonly known methods to make the flame-retardant fabric encapsulate and the ventilation bag be formed together. Thus claimed limitation “wherein the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together” is also obvious to meet.
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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 1 and 10 filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1 or claim 10, the Applicant argues that there is no indication, in Stude or Jiang, that would guide a skilled person to forming the flame-retardant fabric encapsulant of Stude together with the gas bag of Jiang. (Remarks on P6-9).
The Examiner respectfully submits that in light of the 112(b) rejection and BRI as set forth above with respect to the term “are formed together”, along with the product-by-process claim analysis provided in the claim rejection, claim 1 or claim 10 is respectively, rendered obvious over Stude in view of Jiang, regardless of the recitation “wherein the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are formed together”, because the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 1
Applicant first argues that the cited art teaches away from the above-noted feature of amended claim 1, at least because Jiang teaches that the gas bag is only used in combination with an explosion-proof membrane 61, positioned over a pressure release hole 62, which would prevent the gas bag from being formed together with a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant, specifically referring to the structure of the explosion-proof valve 6 including a base body 60 and an explosion-proof membrane 61 (Jiang: [0041] [0052] [0056] and FIGs . 5-6). (Remarks on P6).
Examiner respectfully submits that Jiang teaches the explosion-proof valve 6 including the gas bag 63 ([0056] and FIG. 6) which is mounted on an upper surface of the explosion-proof member 61 ([0052]) and glued on the base body 60 through pressing sheet 65 ([0053] and FIG. 5). Therefore, Jiang teaches the ventilation bag 63 is arranged inside a compartment formed by the pressure relief hole 62 located at the upper side of the casing (FIG. 5).
Since Stude has a similar structure of a 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, and the outlet 23 may have a filter 24 for gases and/or a valve 25, it would have been obvious to add a gas bag in the ventilation space within the outlet 23, in the same manner to be arranged outside of the casing and inside a compartment at the upper side of the casing, as taught by Jiang, in order to reduce the risk of explosion upon a malfunction of the battery cell pack.
Moreover, since the flame-retardant encapsulant and the ventilation bag are both made of fabric material in modified Stude, a skilled artisan would readily envisage using sewing, creating seams, bonding with adhesive or heat, as commonly known methods to make the flame-retardant fabric encapsulate and the ventilation bag be formed together. Therefore, the cited art does not teach away from the above-noted feature and this argument is not found persuasive either.
Applicant further argues that the above-noted feature provides a solution that improves the sealing of the gas inside the battery device while Jiang teaches that the gas bag may be fixed on the base body such that it cannot leak gas. Hence, Jiang provides a completely different solution and does not provide guidance towards the claimed solution, i.e., forming a ventilation bag together with a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant. (Remarks on P7).
Examiner respectfully submits that since “improves the sealing of gas inside the battery device” is not positively claimed thus this argument is moot. Examiner further notes that Jiang teaches a peripheral edge of the gas bag 63 is glued on the base body 60 FIG. 5); and may be fixed on the base body 60 and cannot leak gas ([0053]), which at least implies it would be beneficial to make the gas bag 63 be connected with the base body for the function of arresting gases escaped from the battery without leaking, therefore, Jiang’s teaching would guide a skilled artisan towards a unitary piece of a ventilation bag with a flame-retardant fabric encapsulant being formed together, contrary to the Applicant’s argument.
Applicant finally argues that Jiang does not remedy the deficiency of Stude towards limitation of “the ventilation bag comprises a flame-retardant and/or high-temperature resistant fabric”, by stating Jiang does not disclose that the gas bag is a fabric at all because polyamide is merely a compound which can be used in many forms. (Remarks on P7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the Advisory Action of 11/26/2025, Jiang teaches 63 is a bag ([0052 and FIG. 5], and a bag is traditionally made of a fabric material with a long history. Jiang further teaches the gas bag 63 can be of polyamide (PA) among other choices ([0054]). 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose PA from the finite list for the ventilation bag material, and a skilled artisan would reasonably expect using a synthetic fabric material of PA, such as nylon, as a suitable candidate to make the bag as shown in FIG. 5 of Jiang, thus arriving at the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10
The Applicant argues that Jiang’s “valve cover 61” cannot disclose both configurations of claims 1 and 10, particularly not the configuration defined by claim 10 that “the ventilation space includes an expandable ventilation bag coupled to the outlet and arranged inside the casing”. (Remarks on P8).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Jiang’s ventilation bag 63 is mounted inside a compartment at the upper side of the casing, and the compartment is formed between the upper surface of the explosion-proof member 61 and the inner surface of the valve cover 631 (FIG. 7). Thus, the ventilation space of the explosion-proof valve 6 includes an expandable ventilation bag coupled to the outlet and arranged inside the casing.
Therefore, the ventilation bag can be both inside the casing with valve cover 631 (FIG. 7) for claim 10; and at a side and outside of the casing without cover 631 (FIG. 5) for claim 1, as two different embodiments.
This argument is not found persuasive either.
Conclusion
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
12/23/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/30/2025
Prosecution Insights