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 .
Response to Amendment
Support for the amendments to claims 1 and 10 can be found in Applicant’s specification at P14, 42, and 116-118.
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13-14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 13-15 state “a connecting point, a weakened connecting point” when it appears the “a connecting point” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 9, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered. The objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 9, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges Keum’s “notch 127” is merely a weakened portion of the cooling plate, not a sealed cavity that provides a defined discharge channel (Remarks Page 10). Applicant alleges Keum’s “opening 128” is filled with resin and melts away to form a hole, but does not constitute a pre-defined cavity adjoining a degassing opening and sealed in normal operation (Remarks Page 10).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claim recites “wherein the housing base arrangement has a cavity adjoining the releasable degassing opening, the cavity being sealed in a normal state and providing a discharge channel”.
Regarding Keum’s notch 127:
A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The notch 127 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the notch can be considered a cavity.
The notch 127 contacts the battery cell 110 and is able to tear apart by gas or flame (P86, 88). The battery cell 110 includes vents 113 (releasable degassing opening) which allow gas or flame to be vented outside the battery cell 110 itself (P65, see also Figs. 4 and 5; Fig. 5 shows the opening as a whole). Therefore, the notch can be considered adjoining the releasable degassing opening as it tears apart as the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas through. Further, the notch is “sealed in a normal state” as the battery sits atop and seals the top of the cavity. Also, the notch provides a discharge channel as when the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas out, the gas is discharged into the empty space (channel) of the notch.
Regarding Keum’s opening 128:
A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The opening 128 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the opening 128 is a cavity.
Applicant’s claim requires the cavity to be sealed in a normal state, therefore, the opening being filled with resin seals it in a normal state. Further, the resin in the opening 128 is configured to melt by at least one of gas or flame at the part that contacts the battery cell 110, when at least one of the gas or flame is vented from the battery cell 110 via the vents 113 (releasable degassing opening; P65, 91). Therefore, the opening 128 adjoins the releasable degassing opening and provides a discharge channel when the resin is melted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3, 5-6 and 8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keum et al (US 20230361378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keum discloses a battery arrangement (battery module 100 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P59), comprising:
a housing base arrangement (cooling device 120 in Figs. 1-2 and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P59) and
at least one battery unit which is arranged on the housing base arrangement and is arranged above the housing base arrangement with respect to a first direction and which comprises at least one battery cell (battery cells 110 in Figs. 1, 4-5; see entire disclosure and especially P59),
wherein the at least one battery cell has a first side having a releasable degassing opening which is releasable for discharging a gas from the at least one battery cell (vent 113 in Figs. 4 and/or opening at which gas releases in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P65),
wherein the housing base arrangement has a cavity adjoining the releasable degassing opening, the cavity being sealed in a normal state and providing a discharge channel (notches 127 of layer 122a [A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The notch 127 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the notch can be considered a cavity. The notch 127 contacts the battery cell 110 and is able to tear apart by gas or flame (P86, 88). The battery cell 110 includes vents 113 (releasable degassing opening) which allow gas or flame to be vented outside the battery cell 110 itself (P65, see also Figs. 4 and 5; Fig. 5 shows the opening as a whole). Therefore, the notch can be considered adjoining the releasable degassing opening as it tears apart as the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas through. Further, the notch is “sealed in a normal state” as the battery sits atop and seals the top of the cavity. Also, the notch provides a discharge channel as when the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas out, the gas is discharged into the empty space (channel) of the notch.] or opening 128 [A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The opening 128 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the opening 128 is a cavity. Applicant’s claim requires the cavity to be sealed in a normal state, therefore, the opening 128 being filled with resin seals it in a normal state. Further, the resin in the opening 128 is configured to melt by at least one of gas or flame at the part that contacts the battery cell 110, when at least one of the gas or flame is vented from the battery cell 110 via the vents 113 (releasable degassing opening; P65, 91). Therefore, the opening 128 adjoins the releasable degassing opening and provides a discharge channel when the resin is melted] in Figs. 10 or 12 respectively; see entire disclosure and especially P65, 86, 88, 91);
wherein the housing base arrangement has at least one predetermined breaking point, which is configured, in dependence on a gas escape of a gas from the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell, to release an opening penetrating the housing base arrangement with respect to the first direction, in order to discharge the gas escaping from the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell through the cavity and released opening (battery cell mount portion 121a / notches 127 or resin provided in opening 128 in reinforcement metal layer 122b in Figs. 5, 10, and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P64-65; see entire disclosure and especially P71, 86, 89).
Regarding the limitation “for discharging a gas from the at least one battery cell”, this is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, Keum discloses wherein the battery unit is arranged on the housing base arrangement in such a way that the first side of the at least one battery cell faces toward the housing base arrangement (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Keum discloses wherein the housing base arrangement comprises a housing base which is designed as a cooling base through which a coolant can flow (see entire disclosure and especially P80-81; the housing base can be drawn to reinforcement metal layers 122b, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of the housing base, wherein the local weakening is provided by: a material weakening; and/or a connecting point, a weakened connecting point, at which a first part of the housing base is connected to a second part of the housing base (“The battery cell mount portion 121 may rupture as it melts away or is partially torn apart by at least one of the vented gas or flame”, P64; “The battery cell mount 121 may have the notch 127 at part of the battery cell mount portion 121 that contacts the battery cell 110, and the notch 127 may tear apart by at least one of gas or flame”, P86, see Fig. 10, the notch can be provided in the reinforcement metal layer 122b).
Regarding claim 6, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of an element of the housing base arrangement which is different from the housing base, as a material weakening of the element which is different from the housing base (the element can be drawn to opening 128 in Fig. 12 which includes a polymer resin that is configured to melt; see entire disclosure and especially P89; the element can also be drawn to the outer protective layer 122a given it can include notches (see Fig. 10) and Applicant’s specification states “An element of the housing base arrangement is to be understood in particular as one of the layers mentioned, namely the housing base, the electrically insulating layer, and the thermal interface layer”, Page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Keum discloses wherein the cavity is delimited with respect to the first direction by at least one part of the housing base arrangement, including at least the housing base and the electrically insulating layer located on the housing base (see the annotated Fig. below; see entire disclosure and especially P86).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Keum Fig. 10
Regarding claim 9, Keum discloses wherein the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell is directly adjoining the housing base arrangement, wherein the predetermined breaking point is unambiguously associated with the releasable degassing opening in that the predetermined breaking point is arranged directly below the releasable degassing opening with respect to the first direction (see Figs. 4-5, 10, 12).
Regarding claim 10, Keum discloses a method for discharging a gas from a battery arrangement (battery module 100 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P32-33, 59, 64-65, 98-99), having
a housing base arrangement (cooling device 120 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P59) and
at least one battery unit which is arranged on the housing base arrangement and is arranged above the housing base arrangement with respect to a first direction and which comprises at least one battery cell (battery cells 110 in Figs. 1, 4-5; see entire disclosure and especially P59),
wherein the at least one battery cell has a first side having a releasable degassing opening which is releasable for discharging a gas from the at least one battery cell (vent 113 in Figs. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P65),
wherein the housing base arrangement has a cavity adjoining the releasable degassing opening, the cavity being sealed in a normal state and providing a discharge channel (notches 127 of layer 122a [A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The notch 127 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the notch can be considered a cavity. The notch 127 contacts the battery cell 110 and is able to tear apart by gas or flame (P86, 88). The battery cell 110 includes vents 113 (releasable degassing opening) which allow gas or flame to be vented outside the battery cell 110 itself (P65, see also Figs. 4 and 5; Fig. 5 shows the opening as a whole). Therefore, the notch can be considered adjoining the releasable degassing opening as it tears apart as the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas through. Further, the notch is “sealed in a normal state” as the battery sits atop and seals the top of the cavity. Also, the notch provides a discharge channel as when the releasable degassing opening send flames/gas out, the gas is discharged into the empty space (channel) of the notch.] or opening 128 [A cavity is an empty space within a solid object. The opening 128 of Keum is an empty space provided on/in the surface of the cooling device 120. Therefore, the opening 128 is a cavity. Applicant’s claim requires the cavity to be sealed in a normal state, therefore, the opening 128 being filled with resin seals it in a normal state. Further, the resin in the opening 128 is configured to melt by at least one of gas or flame at the part that contacts the battery cell 110, when at least one of the gas or flame is vented from the battery cell 110 via the vents 113 (releasable degassing opening; P65, 91). Therefore, the opening 128 adjoins the releasable degassing opening and provides a discharge channel when the resin is melted] in Figs. 10 or 12 respectively; see entire disclosure and especially P65, 86, 88, 91);
wherein the housing base arrangement has at least one predetermined breaking point, which releases, in dependence on a gas escape of a gas from the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell, an opening penetrating the housing base arrangement with respect to the first direction, in order to discharge the gas escaping from the degassing opening of the at least one battery cell through the released opening (battery cell mount portion 121a / notches 127 or resin provided in opening 128 in reinforcement metal layer 122b in Figs. 5, 10, and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P64-65; see entire disclosure and especially P71, 86, 89).
Regarding the limitation “for discharging a gas from the at least one battery cell”, this is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, Keum discloses wherein the housing base arrangement comprises a housing base which is designed as a cooling base through which a coolant can flow (see entire disclosure and especially P80-81; the housing base can be drawn to reinforcement metal layers 122b, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Keum discloses wherein the housing base arrangement further comprises an electrically insulating layer (outer protective layer 122a in Figs. 7, 10, and 12) which is arranged between the battery unit and the housing base (see entire disclosure and especially P71).
Regarding claim 13, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of a housing base, wherein the local weakening is provided by: a material weakening; and/or a connecting point, a weakened connecting point, at which a first part of the housing base is connected to a second part of the housing base (“The battery cell mount portion 121 may rupture as it melts away or is partially torn apart by at least one of the vented gas or flame”, P64; “The battery cell mount 121 may have the notch 127 at part of the battery cell mount portion 121 that contacts the battery cell 110, and the notch 127 may tear apart by at least one of gas or flame”, P86, see Fig. 10, the notch can be provided in both outer protective layer 122a and reinforcement metal layer 122b).
Regarding claim 14, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of the housing base, wherein the local weakening is provided by: a material weakening; and/or a connecting point, a weakened connecting point, at which a first part of the housing base is connected to a second part of the housing base (“The battery cell mount portion 121 may rupture as it melts away or is partially torn apart by at least one of the vented gas or flame”, P64; “The battery cell mount 121 may have the notch 127 at part of the battery cell mount portion 121 that contacts the battery cell 110, and the notch 127 may tear apart by at least one of gas or flame”, P86, see Fig. 10, the notch can be provided in one of the reinforcement metal layers 122b).
Regarding claim 15, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of the housing base, wherein the local weakening is provided by: a material weakening; and/or a connecting point, a weakened connecting point, at which a first part of the housing base is connected to a second part of the housing base (“The battery cell mount portion 121 may rupture as it melts away or is partially torn apart by at least one of the vented gas or flame”, P64; “The battery cell mount 121 may have the notch 127 at part of the battery cell mount portion 121 that contacts the battery cell 110, and the notch 127 may tear apart by at least one of gas or flame”, P86, see Fig. 10, the notch can be provided in one of the reinforcement metal layers 122b).
Regarding claim 16, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of an element of the housing base arrangement which is different from a housing base, as a material weakening of the element which is different from the housing base (the element can be drawn to opening 128 in Fig. 12 which includes a polymer resin that is configured to melt; see entire disclosure and especially P89; the element can also be drawn to the outer protective layer 122a given it can include notches (see Fig. 10) and Applicant’s specification states “An element of the housing base arrangement is to be understood in particular as one of the layers mentioned, namely the housing base, the electrically insulating layer, and the thermal interface layer”, Page 8).
Regarding claim 17, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of an element of the housing base arrangement which is different from a housing base, in particular as a material weakening of the element which is different from the housing base (the element can be drawn to opening 128 in Fig. 12 which includes a polymer resin that is configured to melt; see entire disclosure and especially P89; the element can also be drawn to the outer protective layer 122a given it can include notches (see Fig. 10) and Applicant’s specification states “An element of the housing base arrangement is to be understood in particular as one of the layers mentioned, namely the housing base, the electrically insulating layer, and the thermal interface layer”, Page 8).
Regarding claim 18, Keum discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed as a local weakening of an element of the housing base arrangement which is different from a housing base, in particular as a material weakening of the element which is different from the housing base (the element can be drawn to opening 128 in Fig. 12 which includes a polymer resin that is configured to melt; see entire disclosure and especially P89; the element can also be drawn to the outer protective layer 122a given it can include notches (see Fig. 10) and Applicant’s specification states “An element of the housing base arrangement is to be understood in particular as one of the layers mentioned, namely the housing base, the electrically insulating layer, and the thermal interface layer”, Page 8).
Regarding claim 19, Keum discloses wherein the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell is directly adjoining the housing base arrangement, wherein the predetermined breaking point is unambiguously associated with the degassing opening in that the predetermined breaking point is arranged directly below the degassing opening with respect to the first direction (see Figs. 4-5, 10, 12).
Regarding claim 20, Keum discloses wherein the releasable degassing opening of the at least one battery cell is directly adjoining the housing base arrangement, wherein the predetermined breaking point is unambiguously associated with the degassing opening in that the predetermined breaking point is arranged directly below the degassing opening with respect to the first direction (see Figs. 4-5, 10, 12).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Keum et al (US 20230361378 A1) as applied to claim 6, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Keum et al (US 20230361378 A1) as applied to claim 6, in view of Homann (US 20180351220 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Keum discloses wherein the housing base arrangement has a housing base (reinforcement metal layer 122b in Figs. 7, 10, and 12) and an electrically insulating layer (outer protective layer 122a in Figs. 7, 10, and 12), which is arranged between the battery unit and the housing base, wherein the electrically insulating layer comprises a plastic film (see entire disclosure and especially P71; outer protective layer 122a is a layer that can be made of insulating polymer resin, therefore it is a plastic layer, “film”, on the reinforcement metal layer 122b).
Regarding the limitation “for thermally coupling the housing base and the battery unit”, this is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In the instance that Applicant disagrees the outer protective layer 122a is a plastic film, Homann teaches plastic films can be used to provide electrical insulation between at least one battery cell and a cooling plate (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Homann and selected the electrically insulating layer (outer protective layer 122a) to be a plastic film, given the outer protective layer 122a is already an insulating polymer layer and Homann teaches plastic films can be used to provide electrical insulation between at least one battery cell and a cooling plate. 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 combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keum et al (US 20230361378 A1) as applied to claim 6, in view of Straub (WO2011095369A1 using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 7, Keum does not disclose wherein the material weakening is provided by: at least one perforation line, which extends in a straight or curved manner, as an open or closed line; and/or a material taper along at least one line which extends straight or curved, open or closed line; and/or a hole, corresponding to the size of the opening to be released, in an element of the housing base arrangement, which hole is covered by a further element of the housing base arrangement, when no gas escapes from the at least one battery cell; and/or at least one blind hole, which corresponds to the size of the opening to be released, and/or multiple blind holes extending along at least one line.
In a similar field of endeavor, Straub teaches a safety valve (3 in Fig. 5) arranged in a cover of a battery housing (5 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P77). Straub teaches the safety valve is formed of material weakenings (9 in Fig. 5-7; see entire disclosure and especially P77). Straub teaches the material weakenings form predetermined breaking points in the wall of the housing, and the area enclosed by them is opened by the predetermined breaking points when a predefined pressure threshold is exceeded inside and serves for ventilation (see entire disclosure and especially P77).
Straub teaches the material weakenings can be in the form of blind holes arranged in a defined sequence or a micro-perforation line (see entire disclosure and especially P83). Straub teaches another embodiment wherein laser perforation is used as material weakenings formed in the periphery of the area serving as the cover (see entire disclosure and especially P86-91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Straub and provided to Keum wherein the material weakening is provided by: at least one perforation line, which extends in a straight or curved manner, in particular as an open or as a closed line; and/or at least one blind hole, which corresponds to the size of the opening to be released, and/or multiple blind holes extending along at least one line, such as seen in Straub’s disclosure and figures, given Straub teaches blind holes or a micro-perforation line can be used as material weakenings form predetermined breaking points in the wall of the housing, and the area enclosed by them is opened by the predetermined breaking points when a predefined pressure threshold is exceeded inside and serves for ventilation.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scharner et al (DE102017212223A1)
Scharner teaches “In a so-called thermal event, for example due to an trapped foreign particle, an internal short circuit or an overcharging of the energy storage cell, a self-reinforcing chain reaction takes place, so that a comparatively high amount of energy is released and the energy storage cell heats up accordingly. Furthermore, this thermal event creates a gas in the energy storage cell, causing a comparatively high pressure to build up inside, which can lead to deformation or even explosion of the energy storage cell. To avoid or prevent this, the rupture membrane is triggered, i.e., the membrane bursts due to the comparatively high pressure. The relatively hot gas generated in the energy storage cell consequently flows out of the energy storage cell through the housing opening or through the ruptured membrane and via the cooling plate opening into the cell degassing chamber. This is referred to as a trigger event.”
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 Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights