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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 11/20/2025 have been entered. Claims 14-15, 18-20, and 23-30 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 16-17 and 21-22 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 14, 15, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A).
Regarding claim 14, Dai teaches a battery cell (power battery, Fig. 1, [38]) comprising: a battery cell housing (90 and 1, Fig. 1, [38]) including a cover (1, Fig. 1, see [39]); an electrode unit (bare cell, see [38]) arranged in the battery cell housing (90 and 1, Fig. 1, [38]); an emergency vent opening (40, Fig. 3, see [40]) including a bursting membrane (142, Fig. 3, see [39], see in Fig. 3 where 142 covers the opening, see [40]) arranged in the cover (1, Fig. 1, see [39], see Fig. 3 where 40 is in the cover 1), the bursting membrane (142, Fig. 3, see [39]) closing the emergency vent opening (40, Fig. 3 see where 142 covers the opening, see [40]) during normal operation of the battery cell (power battery, Fig. 1, [38], 142 is positioned on the power battery in Fig. 1, it is the examiners position this is an instance showing normal operation); and a grating (Grating, Annotated Fig. 11, see Fig. 1 comprises cover 1, see Fig. 3, the cover plate has a lower section featuring the grating, see Fig. 11 is a close up image of the lower section) having a plurality of grating webs (grating webs, Annotated Fig. 11) arranged in the battery cell (power battery, Fig. 1, [38], see Fig. 1 comprises a cover, see Fig. 3, the cover plate has a lower section featuring the grating, see Fig. 11 is a close up image of the lower section with the grating), the grating (grating, see Annotated Fig. 11) being positioned between the bursting membrane (142, Fig. 3, see [39]) and the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38], although not shown in the images, the bare cell is positioned in 90 and the cover 1 is on top of 90, the grating is positioned below the bursting membrane as seen in Fig. 3, and above the bare cell therefore between the two), wherein the grating (Grating, Annotated Fig. 11) is configured to at least partly reduce a size of particles produced (as the grating has a grid shape with specific through holes in it, the size of the through holes would determine the size of particles allowed through the grating, therefore it is the examiners position the grating is configured to at least partly reduce a size of particles produced by preventing certain size particles from passing through) in an event of destruction of the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38], the grating is built into the cover, therefore it would be functioning during all events of an electrode unit, including during event of destruction), the grating webs (grating webs, Annotated Fig. 11) being configured to have a triangular or polygonal (see Annotated Fig. 11, the grating webs are rectangular shapes, therefore would have a rectangular and therefore polygonal cross sectional shape) cross-sectional shapes comprising acute angles (angles 1 and 2, see cross-section diagram below, as this is a cross-sectional shape any angle with the ability to fit inside the cross section is an acute angle the shape comprises), and/or wherein the grating webs are configured as blades having tips, and wherein the acute angles (angles 1 and 2, see cross-section diagram below) and/or the tips point in a direction (see cross section diagram below where the angles point toward the bottom of the shape, therefore towards the bottom of the battery cell, therefore toward the electrode unit) of the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38]) so as to be facing a particle stream (fluid, see [40] where during explosion a fluid which would include particles and is expelled through the holes in the valve, therefore from in the area of the bare cell outward) expected in an event of the destruction of the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38]).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom of Shape)][AltContent: textbox (Top of Shape)]
Diagram of Cross-Section of grating webs
Regarding claim 15, Dai teaches wherein the grating webs (grating webs, Annotated Fig. 11) are arranged parallel to one another (see Annotated Fig. 11, grating webs are parallel).
Regarding claim 20, Dai teaches wherein a number of grating webs (grating webs, Annotated Fig. 11) is from 4 up to 24 (8 grating webs, see Annotated Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 24, Dai teaches a holder (16, Fig. 3) located between the cover (1, Fig. 1, see [39]) and the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38], see the holder 16 positioned below the cover 1, which would be above the electrode unit, therefore located between the two), wherein the grating (grating, Annotated Fig. 11) is arranged in the holder (16, Fig. 3, see the grating positioned in the holder).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
4. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Pub. No. US 20210359372 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Dai is silent to wherein the grating webs have a transverse extent from 100 μm up to 2 mm.
However, Wu teaches wherein grating webs (grating webs, see annotated Fig. 3 of Wu) have a transverse extent is a result effective variable based on 0.005≤r/(R−r)≤5 where r is radius of gap size between grating webs (grating webs, see annotated Fig. 3 of Wu, see [0065]) and R is the radius of gap between grating bars (grating webs, see annotated Fig. 3 of Wu, see [0065]) and transverse extent of grating bars (grating webs, see annotated Fig. 3 of Wu, see [0065]). (The examiner would like to note this equation basically details a way to determine if the grating web transverse extent or width is strong enough to support a specific gap size between grating webs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai such that the transverse extent is within the claimed range through routine optimization as Wu teaches the transverse extent is a result effective variable for maintaining a balance between rigidity and plasticity (see [0069] of Wu). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
PNG
media_image2.png
303
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
5. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gondoh (Pub. No. US 20210313650 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Dai is silent to wherein the grating webs have a spacing from 100 μm up to 4 mm.
However, Gondoh teaches grating webs (see metal wires, Fig. 3a, see [0035]) have a spacing from 50 μm up to 3.5 mm (0.05 to 3.5 mm, see [0039], although this is designating the maximum diameter of particle size allowed to get through, as shown in Fig. 3a the diameter is also the distance between adjacent grating webs, therefore it is the spacing between them) which overlaps the claimed range in at least 100 μm to 3.5 mm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gondoh such that the spacing between grating webs is 50 μm up to 3.5 mm as taught by Gondoh to improve safety (see [0008] of Gondoh) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I), and further optimize the range taught by Gondoh to stay between the claimed range of 100 μm to 3.5 mm as the spacing of grating webs is a result effective variable of temperature of the exhaust gas (see [0038], and [0039] Formula 2 of Gondoh). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
6. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Meintschel et al. (Pub. No. DE 102015014343 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Dai is silent as to wherein the bursting membrane has a thickness from 80 μm to 400 μm.
However, Meintschel teaches wherein a bursting membrane (4, Fig. 1, see [0036]) has a thickness from 150 μm to 250 μm (see [0036] thickness of foil 0.1 to 0.2 mm and PP inner coating of 0.05 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai to such that the bursting membrane has a thickness of 150 μm to 250 μm as taught by Meintschel to prevent vent gasses from damaging other battery cells (see [0036] of Meintschel) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
7. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. CN 110957438 A).
Regarding claim 25, Dai teaches a holder (16, Fig. 3) located between the cover (1, Fig. 1, see [39]) and the electrode unit (bare cell, see [38], see the holder 16 positioned below the cover 1, which would be above the electrode unit, therefore located between the two), but fails to teach wherein the grating is arranged between the holder and the cover.
However, Li teaches a grating (grating, see Annotated Fig. 2 of Li) arranged between a holder (10, Fig. 2, see [45]) and a cover (3, Fig. 2, see [45], although the grating is not visibly above the holder, as it is present on the top of the holder, it is the examiners position it is positioned between the cover and holder).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai such that the grating is positioned between the holder and the cover as taught by Li as it is known in the art to do so to improve the safety of the battery core (see [24] of Li). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
PNG
media_image3.png
818
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
8. Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Suzuki (Pub. No. JP 2012155897 A).
Regarding claim 26, Dai fails to teach wherein the grating webs are embedded in a film.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein grating webs (crossing lines of 21, Fig. 8, see [0059]) are embedded in a film (17, 20, and 22, Fig. 8, see [0050], according to *thefreedictionary, embedded is defined as “To fix firmly in a surrounding mass”, see [0049] where 22 is applied to the periphery of 21 and parallel with 17, therefore the peripheral edge of grating webs of 21 are fixed firmly in a surrounding material 22 and it is the examiners position they are embedded), wherein the film (17, 20, and 22, Fig. 8, see [0050]) has a first polymer (polymer comprising portion 17, see [0053]) in an outer region (region of 17 outside 20, Fig. 8) and has a second polymer (polymer comprising portion 20, see [0053] 20 is a laminate film as well) in an inner region (region labelled 20, Fig. 8), and wherein the first polymer (polymer comprising portion 17, see [0053]) has a greater hardness than the second polymer (polymer comprising portion 20, see [0053], see [0025] where the heat fusion strength at position 20 is weaker than strength at 17, therefore it is the examiners position the polymer in 17 is harder than the polymer in 20).
*Additional evidence provided by thefreedictionary (thefreedictionary.com, 2011), see definition 1 of embed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai to substitute the grating with grating webs as taught by Dai for the grating and grating webs embedded into a film as taught by Suzuki as an art effective equivalent gas expansion safety valve grid/filter (see [0025] and [0037] of Suzuki) to capture all powder scattered from inside the battery (see [0007] of Suzuki). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
Regarding claim 27, Dai in view of Suzuki teaches wherein the film (17 and 22, Fig. 8, see [0050] of Suzuki, see modification above) has a first polymer (polymer comprising portion 17, see [0053] of Suzuki, see modification above) in an outer region (region of 17 outside 20, Fig. 8 of Suzuki, see modification above) and has a second polymer (polymer comprising portion 20, see [0053] 20 is a laminate film as well, see Suzuki, see modification above) in an inner region (region labelled 20, Fig. 8 of Suzuki, see modification above), and wherein the first polymer (polymer comprising portion 17, see [0053] of Suzuki, see modification above) has a greater hardness than the second polymer (polymer comprising portion 20, see [0053], see [0025] where the heat fusion strength at position 20 is weaker than strength at 17, therefore it is the examiners position the polymer in 17 is harder than the polymer in 20, see Suzuki, see modification above).
Regarding claim 28, Dai fails to teach further comprising: a film on the electrode unit, wherein the grating is integrated in the film.
However, Suzuki teaches a film (17, 20, and 22, Fig. 8, see [0050]) on the electrode unit (electrode unit see Fig. 1(B), further see Fig. 6 is the laminated battery so the electrode unit is the electrode unit of laminated battery, see [0019], see [0033]), wherein the grating (21, Fig. 8, see [0065]) is integrated in the film (17, 20, and 22, Fig. 8, see [0050], see [0049] grating is fixed to outer edge of film 17 using adhesive 22).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai to substitute the grating as taught by Dai for the grating integrated into a film as taught by Suzuki as an art effective equivalent gas expansion safety valve grid/filter (see [0025] and [0037] of Suzuki) to capture all powder scattered from inside the battery (see [0007] of Suzuki). Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
9. Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (Pub. No. CN 109980173 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (Pub. No. US 20210119257 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Dai teaches a battery cell according to claim 14 (see claim 14 above), is a lithium-ion battery cell (see [38]), but fails to teach a lithium-ion battery comprising: a plurality of battery cells.
However, Zhu teaches a lithium-ion battery (battery pack, Fig. 5, see [0072] the pack comprises multiple lithium ion batteries therefore it is a lithium ion battery) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (4, Fig. 5, see [0072]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai such that a plurality of battery cells as taught by Dai are substituted for the battery cells as taught by Zhu as an art effective equivalent battery cell for making a lithium-ion battery. Further Dai teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
Regarding claim 30, Dai in view of Zhu teaches a lithium-ion battery according to claim 29 (see modification above), but fails to teach a motor vehicle comprising: a lithium-ion battery according to claim 29.
However, Zhu further teaches a motor vehicle (hybrid electric vehicle, Fig. 6, see [0074]) comprising a lithium-ion battery (see [0074]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dai in view of Zhu to substitute the lithium-ion battery cell as taught by Dai in view of Zhu for the lithium-ion battery in a motor vehicle as further taught by Zhu as an art effective equivalent lithium-ion battery. Further Dai in view of Zhu teaches that modifications can be made (see [50] of Dai).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that modification of Dai in view of Lee to modify the grating webs as taught by Dai to be configured as blades as taught by Lee would not have been made on the express teachings in Lee as to the function of the blades and the different cell configuration of Dai. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as wedge shape as taught by Lee was not used by the examiner to puncture the porous film as it was merely the shape and positioning that was modified in Dai as taught by Lee with the motivation to modify the invention coming from [0013] of Lee to stably discharge gas generated from inside the of the battery module as this is the objective of the entire invention each component is a part of achieving that objective, therefore modifying the shape of a component of Dai to match a known shape of the same component in the art with the goal of stably discharging gas generated from inside the battery module give motivation to modify.
As pointed out by the applicant, the Examiner initially determined the amendments to claim 14 were able to overcome the current rejection of record, but unable to overcome the current art of record. However, upon further consideration, the amended language of claim 14 of the grating webs being configured to have polygonal cross-sectional shapes comprising acute angles, under broadest reasonable interpretation failed to overcome a rectangular shape as described in Dai as a cross-section of a rectangle would comprise acute angles as any angle which can be drawn or fit in the cross-section the rectangle can comprise.
Conclusion
11. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723