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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, 12, 16, 19, 21-22, 24-27, and 30 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: references number 142 as seen in Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9, 19, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maguire et al. (US 2012/0171533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maguire discloses a vent adaptor for receipt in a vent aperture of a battery ([0009] battery having a gas discharge system), the vent adaptor comprising:
A cylinder having a total length, an external end, and an internal end (Figure 6-7; [0042] battery assembly include a base 115 and gas discharge mechanism 116 that includes a vent tube 118 and vent port 120 wherein the vent port includes a fitting 138 and gasket 139; [0045-0046] vent port 120/fitting 138 having a cylindrical shape as seen in figures 6-7 and has an internal end near the floorpan 114 and an external end near the tube 118); and
A seal integrated with the cylinder having a seal diameter ([0046] vent port 120 includes a fitting 138 and a gasket 139 for coupling the gas discharge mechanism to the floorpan to seal [0049]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire further discloses a first and second projection integrated with the cylinder ( [0046] fitting 138 has a series of projections 144 that extend radially outward, see Figure 7 each of the projections 144 can be a first or second projection).
Regarding claims 4-6, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Maguire further discloses wherein the projections extend around a circumference of the fitting (Figures 6-7) and thus would have a portion of each of the first and second projections that is 180 degrees, less than 180 degrees, and less than 90 degrees along the circumference of the cylinder in a vertical direction in which the fitting extends (Figures 6-7; [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire further discloses wherein the cylinder has one or more ribs (fitting 138 has a series of projections 114 that can be read as the ribs).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Maguire further discloses wherein the one or more ribs comprises a wedge shape formed by an angled portion and a flat portion (Figure 7 projections have a wedge shape with both an angled and flat portion).
Regarding claim 9, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Maguire further discloses wherein the one or more ribs comprise an arcuate shape (Figure 6-7; projections 144 are provided in a circular curved/arc shape).
Regarding claim 19, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire discloses wherein the seal is provided and has a seal diameter this is slightly larger than an external diameter of the cylinder (Figure 7, sealing region of the gasket 139 is slightly larger than the diameter of the external end of the cylinder).
Regarding claim 22, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire further discloses wherein the seal is an arcuate seal and a circular seal (Figure 6-7; seal is a circular shape that contains an arc curve and is provided around the fitting).
Regarding claim 25, Maguire discloses the vent adaptor of claim 1. Maguire further discloses a battery comprising a housing having a vent aperture and wherein the vent adaptor is disposed within the vent aperture (Figures 6-7; [0047] fitting of 138 of the vent port 120 extends through the vent aperture 130 of the battery assembly 112).
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 2012/0171533 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Maguire discloses wherein the ribs comprise an angled portion as seen in Figure 7 that appears to be roughly 45 degrees, however, is explicitly silent with the angles portion being within 15-45 degrees, however, this is deemed to be a specific shape of the angled portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to change the angle/shape of the projections 144 to have the angled portion to have an angle between 15-45 degrees as a simple change in shape of the projection of Maguire. Maguire appears to disclose an angle close to 45 degrees and thus through the modification a skilled artisan can adjust the angle further to be between 15-45 degrees as a change in shape of the projections as this modification would have reasonable expectation of success absent evidence or criticality. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Maguire discloses wherein the projections 144 are located at or near the end of the fitting 138. Maguire is explicitly silent with respect to wherein the projections are located a distance from the external end of the cylinder of approximately 30-80% of the total length of the cylinder, however, this appears to be a relative distance of the projections from the external end of the cylinder. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the location of the projections such that the projections are provided at an area that is 30-80% from the external end of the cylinder as a simple rearrangement of the projections. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious that the projections can be formed closer to the middle region of the fitting as a simple rearrangement of the projections provided on the fitting that would yield expected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 21, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 19. Maguire discloses wherein the seal is provided and has a seal diameter this is slightly larger than an external diameter of the cylinder (Figure 7, sealing region of the gasket 139 is slightly larger than the diameter of the external end of the cylinder), however, is explicitly silent with respect to the ratio being between 1.01 and 1.10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the seal diameter and external diameter of the cylinder such that the seal diameter is only slightly larger than the external diameter of the cylinder such that the ratio between the two can be between 1.01-1.1. Maguire appears to disclose that the seal diameter is larger and thus through the modification can be slightly larger such that the size of the diameters when compared would fall between the claimed ratio of 1.01-1.1 absent unexpected results or criticality. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 2012/0171533 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0050573 A1- having priority of 03/06/2019).
Regarding claim 16, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire discloses wherein the seal/gasket is provided within 3-5% of the internal end of the cylinder, however, is silent with respect to wherein the gasket is provided at a distance of 3-5% of the external end of the cylinder as the external end of the cylinder extends out of the venting area/battery area.
Lee discloses a battery module having a venting structure and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Lee discloses wherein the ventilation unit 400 has a structure in which the ventilation unit does not protrude from the battery module (Figures 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Lee to rearrange the venting structure of Maguire such that the gas discharge mechanism can be provided at an inner side of the battery assembly/floorpan. The resulting modification can include the sealing gasket being provided at an external end of the cylinder rather than an internal end of the cylinder as the gasket would be provided at an end of the floorpan to properly seal the gas discharge mechanism. Thus through the modification, the sealing gasket can be provided at or near the end of the external end of the cylinder to seal the gas discharge mechanism instead of the internal end of the cylinder as a simple rearrangement of the gasket and venting structure. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 2012/0171533 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizoguchi et al. (US 2012/0018238 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Maguire is silent with respect to the internal end being chamfered, however, this appears to be a known shape in the art in view of Mizoguchi.
Mizoguchi discloses a vehicle battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Mizoguchi discloses wherein a discharge area of the battery has a chamfered portion formed in the cover to enable an air stream to flow more smoothly and thus improving the discharge characteristic of the air stream ([0042], Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the shape of the internal end of the fitting to include a chambered end such that the vented gases can flow more smoothly and thus improve the discharge characteristic of the gases as taught by Mizoguchi. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 24. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 26-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 2012/0171533 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Casale et al. (US 5,856,037 A).
Regarding claim 26, Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 25. Maguire is silent with respect to wherein the vent aperture comprises a lip comprising of one or more indentations.
Casale discloses a battery venting system and method and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Casale discloses wherein a vent manifold comprises barbs 332, or individual barbs 334, 336 of the annular wall member to facilitate attachment and connection (Col. 8 line 54 – Col. 9 line 25; Figure 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
499
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the barbs taught by Casale within the fitting of Maguire such that the barbs are provided on the intermediate portion 150 of the fitting of Maguire to facilitate attachment and connection to the mounting bracket of the battery. The shape of the barbs as seen in Figure 4 reads as the lip portion having indentations.
Regarding claim 27, modified Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 26. Modified Maguire according to the modification of claim 2 can include a barb and thus can contain only a single indentation, see modification of claim 2.
Regarding claim 30, modified Maguire discloses all the claim limitations of claim 26. Modified Maguire discloses wherein multiple indentations can be present. Modified Maguire is silent with respect to three indentations which are spaced apart from one another wherein two are spaced apart 180 degrees and the third is spaced apart 30-90 degrees from either of the other two indentations, however, a skilled artisan can adjust the number of indentations and spacing in which the indentations occur from each other to be between 30-180 degrees spaced apart.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to duplicate the number of indentations present and rearrange the indentations such that two indentations are spaced apart 180 degrees from each other and the third being spaced apart 30 and 90 degrees from either of the other two indentations as a simple rearrangement of the indentations of modified Maguire. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Juds et al. (US 2015/0030892 A1)-discloses a vent adapter for a lead acid battery that is configured to mate with a vent port via connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728