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 Claims
Claims 11-18 and 20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-10 and 19 have been canceled.
No claims have been amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/27/2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 16 March 2026
All the rejections from the previous office action are maintained in view of Applicant’s argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rank et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0187014) in view of Takahashi, (US PG Pub 2009/0075162 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Rank et al. depict:
a first housing part (20, Fig. 1); and a second housing part (10, Fig. 1), wherein: the first housing part (20) is not configured to receive storage cells, and the second housing art is configured to receive storage cells (40). As to the first housing part configured to be installed in the motor vehicle as an upper housing part, and the second housing part configured to be installed in the motor vehicle as lower housing part, it is noted that these are functional limitations and by virtue of the lack of structural distinction between the claim first and second housings and those of Rank et al., the first and second housings of Rank et al. would inherently be capable of being installed as claimed. Rank et al. further depict the first housing part closable by a removable first cover (30, Fig. 1), and the second housing part is realized as a closed capsule, due to a non-removable second cover (the bottom surface of the second housing 10 which is a container type and is thusly non-removable [0030], see Figs. 2-4.
Rank further teaches the second cover comprising a venting means to open up in the case the batteries heat up in an unacceptable manner within a very short time resulting in a pressure increase in the battery housing [0031], corresponding to the claimed “in an event of a critical gauge pressure in the electrical energy store”, but does not specifically teach that the venting means has at least one area of material thinning.
However, Takahashi teaches a power supply apparatus (2; Fig.2A) comprising a housing case 30, wherein the housing has a cover 30b comprising a gas discharge valve, wherein the valve is a rupture-type valve formed by partially thinning the wall portion of the housing case portion 30b [0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the rupture-type valve of Takahashi for the venting means of Rank, because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, in the instant case a venting means for the housing/cover of a battery device, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part B).
Moreover, the recitation of “act as a predetermined rupture point in an event of a critical gauge pressure in the electrical energy store” is an intended use limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The Venting system of modified Rank is capable of acting as a predetermined rupture point in an event of a critical gauge pressure in the electrical energy store as explained above.
With regard to claim 12, Rank et al. teach a housing middle part arranged between the first and second housing parts, containing an interspace for a cooling fluid flowing through, see [0034].
With regard to claim 13, the first housing part (20) is configured to receive storage electronics (22, 24) and has outwardly projecting electrical connections, see Fig. 1, and [0026].
With regard to claim 14, the storage electronics of the first housing part and the storage cells of the second housing part are electrically connected to an electrical contacting, of which a leadthrough through the housing middle part is provided with a seal (25), [0028], [0041], [0045], and Fig. 4.
With regard to claim 15, Rank et al. teach that the seal (25) can go all around the cell terminal of the battery cells (40), and may be disposed singly between an end face of the respective battery cells (40) and the second housing part (20). Further, the seal may exist as integrated components of the second housing part (20), and be fixedly disposed at the opening of the second housing part (20). Therefore, as not clear structural and/or compositional distinction of the seal (25) and that instantly claimed, the seal of Rank et al. may inherently be configured to resist burst-pressure from the housing parts.
With regard to claim 16, the second housing part (10) contains a cell pack comprising the storage cells (40), the housings of which are aligned vertically when in an installed state, and a frame (bottom of the second housing part (10) arranged beneath the cell pack, see Fig. 1.
With regard to claims 17 and 18, the frame is downwardly directed and comprises a framework of support elements that act as force-absorbing housing extensions of the storage cells, the support elements are realized as a separate support beneath a cell housing, as an extension of the cell housing, see annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
806
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Rank et al.
With regard to claim 20, Rank et al. depict housing parts and components thereof as claimed and there is not to structural distinction between the claimed housing parts and those of Rank et al. it would be inherent for the cell pack to be protected from damage in an event of lateral and longitudinal crash by an interspace, between the cell pack and outer boundaries of the second housing part, which protection is at least partially reinforced by plasto-elastic material filling the interspaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Rank does not disclose that the bottom surface of the container 10 includes a venting means. Rank states that the support 20 may include a venting means and since the interior region of the support 20 is spatially delimited from the interior region of the container 10, the fluid is reliably prevented from escaping into the interior region of the container 10. Accordingly, it would not have been obvious to modify Rank such that the venting means is positioned in the bottom surface of the container 10” (see Page 3-4 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Rank specifically teaches in [0031] that the housing components (5, 10, 20, 30), in particular the support 20, may comprise a venting means. Moreover, Rank specifically teaches that in some embodiments the interior region of support 20 is not delimited in an absolutely gas-tight manner from the container 10. Therefore, a sealed venting means for container 10 would prevent fluid from getting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle [0036].
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 PM.
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.
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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights