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 3, 5-8 and 10-11 are preliminarily amended, submitted on April 7, 2023. Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
3. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “a cover” that is coupled with functional language “configured to block flame discharged from the cell assembly” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a cover" in claims 1 and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant application lacks special definitions regarding the claim limitation except for in PGpub version Paragraphs [0016] and [0052-0054] provides “the cover 310 may include (emphasis added) a first portion 312 and a second portion 314”; and Paragraph [0055] provides “the cover 310 of the connector 300 may be configured in a form (emphasis added) coupled to the outer surface and the inner surface of the module case 200 with the module case 200 interposed therebetween.” Since “may include” and “may be configured in a form” are permissive terms, they do not provide a definite structure or adequate disclosure to be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the claim limitation.
Therefore, for examination purposes, the claim limitation “a cover” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, while limitations from the specification must not be read into the claims (MPEP 2111). The BRI of the corresponding structure and equivalents of “a cover” are any components with any shapes, structures, measures, means etc., or equivalents thereof, that can block flame discharged from the cell assembly.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes that claim 2, and its dependents, are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since they recite sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 10-12 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 recites in Ln 4 the limitation “a cover configured to block flame discharged from the cell assembly” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is only using permissive terms “may include” and “may be configured in a form” to describe associated structures for the blocking flame function, and is devoid of any definite structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g. examiner notes that claim 2 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since it recites sufficient structure);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 10-12, are similarly rejected for including the subject matter of base claim 1 since they are also subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (WO 2019187903 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Ogawa discloses a battery module (battery pack 62, [0077]) comprising: a cell assembly (cells 63, FIGs. 1 and 3); a module case (casing 65, FIG. 3) for accommodating the cell assembly therein (FIG. 1); and a connector (first end member 68, [0044] and FIG.1) provided in the module case (FIG. 3) and having a cover (flame-shielding section 70, [0046] and FIG. 1) configured to block flame discharged from the cell assembly (prevents the flame inside the casing 65 from escaping [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Ogawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Ogawa further discloses a side surface (left side surface of 65, FIG. 3) of the module case having the connector is configured to be inclined outwardly (an outward inclined ridge joining two bent portions of the left side surface, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Ogawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Ogawa further discloses multiple sets of cell assembly of a group of cells 63 aligned along the longitudinal D1 direction ([0057] and FIG. 4A and 4B) which discloses a battery pack comprising at least one battery module according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Ogawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Ogawa further discloses an electric vehicle (electric bicycle [0012]) comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 11.
10. Claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mack (US 20150030893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Mack discloses a battery module (22, [0030]) comprising: a cell assembly (cells 42, [0031] and FIG. 3); a module case (vent housing 40, housing 44 and base 46, [0031-0032] and Fig. 3) for accommodating the cell assembly therein; and a connector (hose connection assembly 72, [0041] and FIG. 4) provided in the module case (venting housing 40) and having a cover (face plate 60, an internal chamber 90 and a cover 80, [0044] and FIG. 5). Mack further discloses when the cover 80 is removed the vented gases 71 are able to escape the battery module 22 in a direction defined by an opening 84 ([0042]). A skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the cover of Mack which includes three parts (face plate 60, an internal chamber 90 and a cover 80, [0044] and FIG. 5) is configured to block flame discharged from the cell assembly with the cover 80 not being removed as shown in FIG. 5.
Regarding claim 2, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses the face plate 60 attached to a first surface 66 ([0040]) and the internal chamber 90 coupled to an opening 92 in the first surface 66 ([0044]), which discloses the cover includes: a first portion (face plate 60, [0044] and FIG. 5) coupled to an outer surface (first surface 66 [0040]) of the module case (FIG. 4); and a second portion (internal chamber 90, [0044] and FIG. 5) coupled to an inner surface of the module case because opening 92 appears to be a through-hole crossing the inner surface of module case 40 to the first surface 66 ([0044] and FIG. 5), wherein a part of the module case (the part covered by the face plate 60 excluding the internal chamber 90, FIG. 5) is disposed between the first portion and the second portion (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses the connector further includes a blocking member (covering 98, [0044] and FIGs. 5-6) provided on a side of the second portion facing the cell assembly (FIGs. 5-6) and the material may include expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) or GORE® vent available from W.L. Gore & Associates, INC. of Newark, DEL. ([0044]), which is a heat resistant member designed to handle high temperatures, with some series rated for continuous use up to 125 °C (257 °F), therefore the covering 98 of Mack reads on a heat blocking member included in the connector provided on the side of the second portion facing the cell assembly as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses the connector further includes a coupling member (fasteners 70, [0039]) configured to penetrate the module case and couple the first portion and the second portion to each other (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 11, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses a battery pack (battery system 20, [0029] and FIG. 2) comprising at least one battery module according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses an electric vehicle (HEV 10, [0028] and FIGs. 1-2) comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack (US 20150030893 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses a material of the second portion (covering 98 of 90 [0044] and FIG. 5) includes a material of e-PTFE ([0044]); and a hose connector 82 disposed in the first portion (face plate 60, [0044] and FIG. 5) with a gasket 84 (FIG.5) formed from for example an elastomeric material (eg., rubber) among other choices ([0043]). Since Mack discloses e-PFTE for the second portion and rubber for the first portion with sufficient specificity, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the material of the second portion (e-PTFE for covering 98) would inherently have a higher heat resistance than the material of the first portion (rubber for gasket 84), thus anticipates the claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that Mack, for some reason, is not considered to anticipate the claims as set forth above, the following obviousness rejections are also presented.
While Mack does not explicitly disclose a material of the second portion has a higher heat resistance than a material of the first portion, Mack further discloses a material of the second portion (covering 98 of 90 [0044] and FIG. 5) includes a material of e-PTFE ([0044]); and a hose connector 82 disposed in the first portion (face plate 60, [0044] and FIG. 5) with a gasket 84 (FIG.5) formed from for example an elastomeric material (eg., rubber) among other choices ([0043]).
A skilled artisan would reasonably select rubber from the finite gasket material list ([0043]) for the gasket 84 in the first portion, thus arriving at the claimed “a material of the second portion has a higher heat resistance than a material of the first portion”, because e-PTFE for covering 98 is inherently more heat resistant than rubber for gasket 84, rendering obvious the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses a material of the second portion (covering 98 of 90 [0044] and FIG. 5) includes a material of e-PTFE ([0044]); the connector further includes a sealing portion (gasket 86 between the first face 66 of venting house 40 and the first plate 60, [0043] and FIG. 5) configured to seal a gap between the first portion and the module case (FIG. 5), suitable gasket material, for example a metallic material that is more ductile compared to the venting housing 40 ([0043]). Since Mack discloses e-PFTE for the second portion and metallic material as gasket 86 with sufficient specificity with regard to gasket 86 for sealing the venting house 40 ([0043] and FIG. 5), a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the sealing portion includes a metallic gasket 86 which would inherently have a higher heat resistance than the material of the second portion (e-PTFE for covering 98), thus anticipates the claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that Mack, for some reason, is not considered to anticipate the claims as set forth above, the following obviousness rejections are also presented.
While Mack does not explicitly disclose the sealing portion includes a material with higher heat resistance than the material of the second portion, Mack further discloses a material of the second portion (covering 98 of 90 [0044] and FIG. 5) includes a material of e-PTFE ([0044]); the connector further includes a sealing portion (gasket 86 between the first face 66 of venting house 40 and the first plate 60, [0043] and FIG. 5) configured to seal a gap between the first portion and the module case (FIG. 5), suitable gasket material, including a metallic material that is more ductile compared to the venting housing 40, among other choices ([0043]).
A skilled artisan would reasonably select metallic material from the finite gasket material list ([0043]) for the gasket 86 as the sealing potion between the first face 66 of the venting house 40 and the first plate 60, thus arriving at the claimed “the sealing portion includes a material with higher heat resistance than the material of the second portion”, because a metallic gasket 86 for the sealing portion is inherently more heat resistant than the material of the second portion (e-PTFE for covering 98), rendering obvious the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mack further discloses the sealing portion is configured to surround an outer edge of the first portion facing the module case (FIG. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack (US 20150030893 A1), as applied to claim 4, in view of Naitoh (US 20220294074 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, while Mack further discloses the ventilation chamber 90 may include holes or openings 116 with the covering 98 disposed over the holes or openings 116 to allow certain gases to pass and enable small amount of venting from the internal components of the battery module 22 resulting from heating and pressure increases ([0047]), and a heat blocking member (covering 98, [0044] and FIG. 5) on a side of the second portion facing the cell assembly, Mack’s heat blocking member (covering 98, [0044] and FIG. 5) appears to be flat and thus Mack’s second portion does not seem to include a protruding portion extending from the side facing the cell assembly and configured to surround an edge of the heat blocking member (claim 5); nor the connector further includes a bent portion formed by bending extending from the protruding portion toward the cell assembly (claim 6).
Naitoh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches similar concerns about the gas pressure in the exhaust path rises even when a relatively small amount of gas is released, and the need of accumulating gas released from a battery cell in the battery pack as much as possible while suppressing the other battery cells from becoming hot due to the gas ([0007]). To solve the problem, Naitoh teaches in FIG. 13 that the portion of the duct 80 upstream of the filter 91 has an engagement protrusion 83 that engages with the edge of the filter 91 along the entire inner peripheral face of the duct 80, and an inclined face (narrowing part) 83c that extends from the upstream end of the inner face 83b to the inner face of the duct 80 ([0089] and FIG. 13). Naitoh’s engagement protrusion 83 corresponds to the claimed “a protruding portion extending from the side facing the cell assembly and configured to surround an edge of the heat blocking member” (claim 5); and the inclined face (narrowing part) 83c corresponds to the claimed “a bent portion formed by bending extending from the protruding portion toward the cell assembly” (claim 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a skilled artisan to modify the heat blocking member (covering 98) of Mack with an addition of a protruding portion extending from the side facing the cell assembly and configured to surround an edge of the heat blocking member thus arriving at claim 5; and further include a bent portion formed by bending extending from the protruding portion toward the cell assembly thus arriving at claim 6, as taught by Naitoh, in order to realize accumulating gas released from a battery cell in the battery pack as much as possible while suppressing the other battery cells from becoming hot due to the gas.
15. Claim 10 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack (US 20150030893 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kim (US 20140322566 A1).
Regarding claim 10, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, Mack discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Mack further discloses a side surface of the module case having the connector is configured to have a ventilation vent 96 ([0045] and FIG. 5-6), Mack does not explicitly disclose the ventilation vent 96 on the side surface of the module case is inclined outwardly.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a discharge part 70 may discharge gas and an erupting material erupted from the unit cell 100 to the outside ([0042] and the discharge part 70 may be inclined outwardly with respect to one side of at least the unit cell 100 inside (FIG. 1), thereby inducing the erupted gas and the erupting material to travel in directions away from both sides of the unit cell 100 ([0075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the ventilation vent 96 located on a side surface of the module case of Mack in the same inclined outwardly fashion as taught by Kim, in order to induce the erupted gas and the erupting material to travel in directions away from both sides of the battery module, thus improving the safety performance of the battery module when thermal runaway occurs.
Conclusion
16. 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, 8:30AM -5:00PM 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, 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
11/26/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/26/2025