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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/9/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related and that there not a serious search burden. Applicants cite MPEP §803 when making this argument. This is not found persuasive because it is noted MPEP §803 deals with applications filed under 35 USC 111(a), and the instant application is a national stage application filed under 35 USC 371, subject to unity of invention analysis regarding restrictions. Unity of invention has not been addressed (or rebutted) by the Applicant’s arguments submitted 9/9/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 16-19are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Harper et al. (US 2016/0141669).
Regarding claim 1, Harper et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a valve structure (ref 7) comprising: a passage (ref 6) communicating an inside (“inside”, Fig 2 below) of a container (“container”, Fig 2 below) housing a power storage device element (refs 3, 4, 5) with outside (ref 2); and a liquid reservoir part (ref 16) located inside (Fig 2) the passage (ref 6) and storing a liquid (ref 14) through which gas generated ([0036]) by the power storage device element (refs 3, 4, 5) is permeable ([0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the passage (ref 6) includes an opening (ref 17) that discharges the gas ([0037]) to outside (ref 2) the container (“container”, Fig 2 above), and the liquid reservoir part (ref 16) is located toward the inside (“inside”, Fig 2 above) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above), away from (Fig 2) the opening (ref 17).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a valve outer body ([0036], pipeline itself) inside which the passage (ref 6) is formed, wherein the valve outer body ([0036], pipeline) includes an attachment part (“AP”, Fig 2 above) configured to be fixed (Fig 2) to the container (“container”, Fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the valve outer body ([0036], pipeline itself) further includes a tubular part (all of pipes of ref 16, 12) joined to the attachment part (“AP”, Fig 2 above) and disposed outside (Fig 2) the container (“container”, Fig 2 above), the tubular part (all of pipes refs 16, 12) includes a curved portion (ref 12, Fig 2), and the liquid reservoir part (ref 16) is located in the curved portion (ref 2, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the valve outer body ([0036], pipeline itself) further includes a tubular part (“pipes”, Fig 2 above) joined to the attachment part (“AP”, Fig 2 above) and a casing (outer structure of ref 7, Fig 2) into which the tubular part (“pipes”, Fig 2 above) is inserted (Fig 2), and the liquid reservoir part (ref 16) is located inside the casing (outer structure of ref 7, Fig 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 16-19, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a check valve (ref 27, [0046]) disposed toward an inside (“inside”, Fig 2 above) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above) relative to (Fig 2, ref 27 closer, upstream of ref 16 fluidly) the liquid reservoir part (ref 16), and configured to open when an internal pressure ([0046]) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above) increases due to the gas ([0046]) generated inside the container (“container”, Fig 2 above), and pass the gas ([0046]) toward the outside (ref 2) from nearer the inside (“inside”, Fig 2 above) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 10, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a melting point of the liquid is 0C or lower ([0016], materials listed meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a boiling point of the liquid is 150°C or higher ([0016], materials listed meet this limitation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6-7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2016/0141669) as applied to claims 3 and 4 above, and further in view of You et al. (US 2019/0245174).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the liquid reservoir part (erf 16) includes a holding member supported (Fig 2, see double layer / over-packed pipe at the U-shaped curve section 12) by the valve outer body ([0036], pipeline itself) and configured to hold the liquid ([0037]-[0040]), but does not explicitly disclose material constituting the holding member includes a porous material, nor the liquid reservoir part further includes a partitioning member supported by the valve outer body and partitioning a housing space housing the liquid inside the passage.
You et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery (Abstract) including a valve structure ([0032]) for controlling fluid release therein ([0032]). The valve structure includes a valve body (ref 1) including an inlet (ref 1a) and an outlet (ref 1b) with a passage way (ref 12, Fig 5). Within the passage way, a partition member (ref 5) is supported by the valve body (ref 1, Fig 5). This partition member (ref 5) is made of a porous material ([0052]-[0053]). This configuration allows a filtering of the fluid/liquid prior to discharge and enhances the overall performance efficiency of the battery ([0052]-[0053]).
You et al. and Harper et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the porous / separator partition member (filter) of You et al. into the valve structure of Harper et al. to allow filtering of the fluid/liquid prior to discharge and enhance the overall performance efficiency of the battery.
Regarding claim 20, modified Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a check valve (ref 27, [0046]) disposed toward an inside (“inside”, Fig 2 above) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above) relative to (Fig 2, ref 27 closer, upstream of ref 16 fluidly) the liquid reservoir part (ref 16), and configured to open when an internal pressure ([0046]) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above) increases due to the gas ([0046]) generated inside the container (“container”, Fig 2 above), and pass the gas ([0046]) toward the outside (ref 2) from nearer the inside (“inside”, Fig 2 above) of the container (“container”, Fig 2 above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2016/0141669) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mosso et al. (US 2014/0057141).
Regarding claim 8, Harper et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the valve outer body further includes a nozzle joined to the attachment part and tapered proceeding toward the liquid reservoir part.
Mosso et al. discloses in Figs 1-12, a battery (Abstract, [0048]) including liquid filled tanks (refs 12, 14, [0048]). Flow is controlled between the tanks (refs 12, 14) utilizing conduits/piping valve structures fitted with nozzles ([0048]). This configuration enhances fluid control and piping connection, enhancing overall battery performance.
Mosso et al. and Harper et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the nozzle of Mosso et al. into the structure of Harper et al. to enhance fluid control and piping connection, enhancing overall battery performance.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/032,249 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the ‘249 application anticipates all of the limitations of instant claim 1. Note below, all of the elements of instant claim 1 are found within claim 1 of the reference application.
Instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
147
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Application #: 18/032,249:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Daniel (US 2014/0220463) discloses in Figs 1-8, a flow battery (Abstract) including liquids held in tanks and fluid control implemented via valves and nozzles ([0067], Fig 3).
Williams (US 2017/0025697) discloses in Figs 1-6, a flow battery (ref 500D) including tanks and fluid passages/piping including valves and nozzles ([0115]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725