DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 11/6/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 discloses “the deformable deforms”. This will be interpreted as “the deformable region deforms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (WO 2019/044633, citations from US 2020/0395582) in view of Willard (US 1,151,077).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Ogawa discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery pack (ref 10) comprising: a secondary battery (ref 130); and a battery case (ref 100) that houses (Fig 2) the secondary battery (ref 130), wherein the battery case (ref 100) includes an exhaust section (ref 400) through which gas discharged ([0044]) from the secondary battery (ref 130) is exhausted to outside ([0044]) of the battery case (ref 100), and the exhaust section (ref 400) includes at least one opening (ref 430) that is opened along with deformation ([0072], Fig 5) of the exhaust section (ref 400) occurring in accordance with an increase in pressure ([0044], [0078]) in the battery case (ref 100).
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose a plurality of through-opening slits, and a deformable region located between the plurality of slits, the through-opening brought into an open state in response to discharge of the gas and is brought into a closed state having a smaller degree of opening than the open state when the discharge of the gas does not occur, wherein the through-opening is brought into the open state in response to discharge of the gas as the deformable region deforms in a thickness direction of the exhaust section, with deformation of the deformable region reversibly changes a shape of the deformable region while being supported at least by two opposing portions of the exhaust section, the opposing portions facing each other across the deformable region.
Willard discloses in Figs 1-3, a battery (Title) including a vent structure (Figs 1-3) comprising vent slots (refs 22) located across from one another (Figs 1, 3) with a deformable rubber annulus (ref 19) located there between. In operation, the rubber annulus (ref 19) deforms to allow gases (P1/C2/L60-65, 80-85) out of the slots (refs 22). The slots (refs 22) remain open during operation, with the rubber annulus (ref 19) controlling the amount of deformation and thus the amount of opening of the slots (ref 22) to discharge gas (P1/C2/L60-105). Thus, in a closed state, the slots (refs 22) remain open to a smaller degree than in an open state, controlled by deformation of the rubber annulus (ref 19). This configuration enhances gas discharge and general operation of the battery (P1/C2/L60-110 – P2/C1/L1-15).
Willard and Ogawa are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries and exhaust structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the multiple slot with rubber deformable structure as disclosed by Willard into the exhaust structure of Ogawa to enhance gas discharge within the battery, thereby enhancing overall battery safety and performance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the exhaust section (ref 400) contains an aluminum material ([0046]) or a stainless steel material ([0046]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of the plurality of slits (ref 430) includes a linear shape (Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the at least one of the plurality of slits (ref 430) includes a bent portion ([0058]-[0063], Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plurality of slits overlap ([0061]-[0064], Figs 3-4).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific through-opening width (5 micron – 2mm or 30 micron – 1mm), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the width of the through-openings, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the size of through-openings affects the discharge rate of gases within a battery and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of through-openings in a battery exhaust structure.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (WO 2019/044633, citations from US 2020/0395582) in view of Willard (US 1,151,077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagiuda (US 5,538,807).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ogawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a covering member which covers the exhaust section, wherein the covering member contains an air-permeable and waterproof material.
Hagiuda discloses in Figs 1-7, a battery (Abstract) including a gas pressure relief valve (refs 6a-c) comprising slits (Figs 5-7) that is reversibly operable to vent gas (C2/L10-20, C2/L58-67, C3/L49-52, the valve (refs 6a-c) including an air permeable and waterproof covering member (refs 4, 5, 11, C2/L10-20, C2/L58-67, C3/L49-52). This configuration allows the battery to vent gas and remain water tight (C2/L10-20, C2/L58-67, C3/L49-52).
Haguida and Ogawa are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the valve covering structures and reversible operation disclosed by Haguida into the exhaust section of Ogawa to allow the battery to vent gas and remain water tight, enhancing overall battery safety and performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-13 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725