DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted April 17, 2023 and August 21, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “configured to communicate an exterior of a container housing of power storage device element” but this limitation is grammatically incorrect (it is missing an article) and should likely read “configured to communicate an exterior of a container housing of a power storage device element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takemura US PG Publication 2012/0176730.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Takemura discloses a power storage device (electric storage device) 1 (meeting Claim 8) comprising a valve structure for a power storage device (electric storage device) 1 comprising a passage configured to communication an interior 8 of a container housing (device body) 2 of a power storage device element with an exterior of the container and a check valve attached to the container 10 and disposed to block the passage and configured to open with the internal pressure of the container increases due to gas produced inside the container and pass the gas from an internal side of the container to an external side 9 (para 0108) wherein the check valve includes a valve body (housing body) 52 (excluding the valve seat portion) and valve seat (portion of 52 on which the valve 16 rests, Fig 13 and paras 0113-0114) and the valve structure comprises a liquid (silicone oil) 11 disposed to come in contact with the valve seat and the valve body (see annotated Fig below) since 22 is disposed on the valve seat, at the corner where the valve seat meets the valve body (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-3 and 13; paras 0042-0077, 0107-0118).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Takemura discloses wherein the sealing material (silicone liquid) 22 has volatilization of less than 1% at a temperature of 150 °C (para 0058) and so the skilled artisan would understand that the boiling point of the material is not less than 150 °C.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Takemura discloses wherein the valve structure’s passage comprises an outlet (buffer space) 12 of second gas release mechanism portion 11 facing an external space 9 and the valve structure comprises a sealing member (gas release valve/reinforcing member/sealing material) 25/26/29 attached to close the outlet (see at least Figs 3-4 and 12-13; paras 0060-0071)
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Takemura discloses wherein the valve structure comprises a lid (gas-liquid separation film) 15 disposed at least on one of a primary side and a secondary side of the check valve (the side being primary or secondary is arbitrarily assigned) and configured to permeate the gas since gas-liquid separation film 15 serves to allow gas to pass through to enter the valve (see at least para 0068, Fig. 3).
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 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 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.
7. Claims 2, 5, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura US PG Publication 2012/0176730, as applied to Claims 1 and 8, and further in view of “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” (see https://www.clearcoproducts.com/pdf/phenyl/NP-PM-50_Phenylmethyl_Silicone_Fluid(1).pdf).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Takemura discloses the claimed valve structure and energy storage device as described in the rejections of Claim 1 and 8 which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Takemura describes the use of a phenyl methyl silicone oil having kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s and operable as a liquid (see cited sections above), but Takemura fails to specifically disclose wherein the liquid has a melting point not higher than 10 °C. However, “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” discloses a phenyl methyl silicone oil having a kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s that is advantageously used in applications needing phenyl methyl silicone oil with wide temperature performance, low viscosity change at temperature, thermal stability, and resistance to oxidation and teaches the use of a material that would remain liquid from its pour point (-57 °C) to above 150 °C (it is stable up to 204 °C when open to air and higher in a closed system) (see highlighted portions). Accordingly, its melting point is below 10 °C (and its boiling point is not less than 150 °C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the phenylmethyl silicone fluid of “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” as the phenyl methyl silicone oil of Takemura because this material is advantageously used in applications needing phenyl methyl silicone oil with wide temperature performance, low viscosity change at temperature, thermal stability, and resistance to oxidation. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12-13, the phenyl methyl silicone oil of Takemura having a kinematic viscosity of 50 mm2/s, and beneficially using the material of “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” as explained in the rejection of Claim 2, ,would be expected to have a specific gravity of 0.985 (see “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL”), giving a (dynamic) viscosity of 50x0.985 or 49.25 mPa∙s, which is in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15, Takemura discloses wherein the valve structure’s passage comprises an outlet (buffer space) 12 of second gas release mechanism portion 11 facing an external space 9 and the valve structure comprises a sealing member (gas release valve/reinforcing member/sealing material) 25/26/29 attached to close the outlet (see at least Figs 3-4 and 12-13; paras 0060-0071)
Regarding Claim 18, Takemura modified by “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” discloses wherein the valve structure comprises a lid 15 disposed at least on one of a primary side and a secondary side of the check valve and configured to permeate the gas since gas-liquid separation film 15 serves to allow gas to pass through to enter the valve (see at least para 0068, Fig. 3 of Takemura).
Regarding Claim 19, Takemura discloses wherein the valve structure comprises a lid (gas-liquid separation film) 15 disposed at least on one of a primary side and a secondary side of the check valve (the side being primary or secondary is arbitrarily assigned) and configured to permeate the gas since gas-liquid separation film 15 serves to allow gas to pass through to enter the valve (see at least para 0068, Fig. 3).
8. Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura US PG Publication 2012/0176730, as applied to Claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Nip WO2014/193979.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Takemura discloses the claimed valve structure and energy storage device as described in the rejections of Claim 1 and 3 which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Takemura describes the use of a phenyl methyl silicone oil as the stable liquid sealing material (with functional equivalents of hydrocarbon oil or fluorine oil), but Takemura fails to specifically disclose wherein the liquid includes liquid paraffin. However, in a similar field of endeavor of check valve design, Nip discloses that a check valve can be treated/capped with e.g. silicone oil or viscous paraffin oil as functionally equivalent materials (see e.g. para 00061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include liquid paraffin as a sealing material in the check valve structure of Takemura because Nip teaches that this material is functionally equivalent to silicone oil in a similar application, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 17, Takemura modified by Nip discloses wherein the valve structure’s passage comprises an outlet (buffer space) 12 of second gas release mechanism portion 11 facing an external space 9 and the valve structure comprises a sealing member (gas release valve/reinforcing member/sealing material) 25/26/29 attached to close the outlet (see at least Figs 3-4 and 12-13; paras 0060-0071)
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura US PG Publication 2012/0176730 and “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” (see https://www.clearcoproducts.com/pdf/phenyl/NP-PM-50_Phenylmethyl_Silicone_Fluid(1).pdf), as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Nip WO2014/193979.
Regarding Claim 10, Takemura discloses the claimed valve structure and energy storage device as described in the rejections of Claim 1 and 8 which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Takemura describes the use of a phenyl methyl silicone oil having kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s and operable as a liquid (see cited sections above), but Takemura modified by “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” fails to specifically disclose wherein the liquid includes liquid paraffin. However, in a similar field of endeavor of check valve design, Nip discloses that a check valve can be treated/capped with e.g. silicone oil or viscous paraffin oil as functionally equivalent materials (see e.g. para 00061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include liquid paraffin as a sealing material in the check valve structure of Takemura modified by “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” because Nip teaches that this material is functionally equivalent to silicone oil in a similar application, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura US PG Publication 2012/0176730 in view of Nip WO2014/193979, as applied to Claim 4, and further in view of “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” (see https://www.clearcoproducts.com/pdf/phenyl/NP-PM-50_Phenylmethyl_Silicone_Fluid(1).pdf)
Regarding Claim 14, Takemura modified by Nip “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” by discloses the claimed valve structure and energy storage device as described in the rejections of Claim 4, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Takemura describes the use of a phenyl methyl silicone oil having kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s and operable as a liquid (see cited sections above), and Nip teaches to use a “viscous paraffin oil” but the prior art fails to specifically disclose wherein the liquid is paraffin oil having a viscosity in a range of 0.1 mPas to 2000 mPas. However, because Takemura teaches to use a liquid having a kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s, the the skilled artisan would understand that the paraffin oil of Takemura should have a substantially similar viscosity. PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” discloses a phenyl methyl silicone oil having a kinematic viscosity of 50 mm-2/s that is advantageously used in applications needing phenyl methyl silicone oil with wide temperature performance, low viscosity change at temperature, thermal stability, and resistance to oxidation and teaches the use of a material that would remain liquid from its pour point (-57 °C) to above 150 °C (it is stable up to 204 °C when open to air and higher in a closed system) (see highlighted portions) and having a specific gravity (which would be about the same as the density) which would give a (dynamic) viscosity of 50x0.985 or 49.25 mPa∙s, which is in the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a viscous paraffin oil having e.g. viscosity in a range of 0.1 mPas to 2000 mPas because Takemura modified by Nip teaches to use a paraffin oil having a viscosity of 50 mm-2/s which “PM‐50 Phenylmethyl Silicone Fluid NPL” teaches should be advantageously equivalent to a viscosity of 49.25 mPa∙s to provide wide temperature performance, low viscosity change at temperature, thermal stability, and resistance to oxidation. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe JP2003272971 which discloses a valve structure (gas venting/purging device) 4 for a power storage device comprising a passage (gas purging path) 15 configured to communicate an exterior of a container housing of a power storage device element (electric double layer capacitor), wherein the valve is configured to open when an internal pressure of the container increases due to gas produced inside the container and pass the gas from an internal side of the container to an external side and wherein the valve structure comprises a liquid (viscous liquid such as silicone oil) disposed in the valve structure (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-3 and paras 0006-0009, 0012-0015, 0023-0030).
So KR20150086897 discloses a check valve preventing leaks and discharging only air and not particles where a viscous liquid layer 234 formed of e.g. silicone oil having viscosity is applied between an opening of the valve and an outlet (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 2-4 and paras 0057-0062).
Hughes US Patent 1,362,535, discloses a liquid sealed check valve including a viscous liquid that prevents leak flow of gases, vapors, and volatile oils (see entire disclosure).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729