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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mounting face” of new claim 11 and the “mounting face is defined by a shoulder of the diffuser element” (emphasis added) of new claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “a valve element that is directly fixed to the housing outlet and detached from the diffuser element, wherein the diffuser element is attached to an exterior of the housing, wherein a housing outlet is arranged in the housing, which housing outlet is configured so as to discharge gas out of the interior in an outgoing direction to the diffuser element, wherein the outgoing direction is directed from the housing outlet towards the head face” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for plural ‘housing outlets’. Claims 2-18 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
New claim 13 “the head face is a closed structure that does not include any diffuser outlets” (emphasis added). There is no support for this negative requirement in the Specification in view of reasoning that a negative claim requirement introduces new concepts since an express exclusion of certain elements implies permissible inclusion of all other elements not so expressly excluded. Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BD. App. 1983; aff’dmem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir, 1984). Claim 14 is also rejected as depending on claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “a valve element that is directly fixed to the housing outlet and detached from the diffuser element, wherein the diffuser element is attached to an exterior of the housing, wherein a housing outlet is arranged in the housing, which housing outlet is configured so as to discharge gas out of the interior in an outgoing direction to the diffuser element, wherein the outgoing direction is directed from the housing outlet towards the head face” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is rendered indefinite as to whether: 1) the “housing outlet” is intended to refer back to “the housing outlet”, “a housing outlet”, or a distinct ‘housing outlet’ thereof; and 2) “the housing outlet” is intended to refer back to “the housing outlet”, “a housing outlet”, or a distinct ‘housing outlet’ thereof. Claims 2-18 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "a valve that is directly fixed to the housing outlet" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
New claim 13 recites “each side face includes the diffuser outlets through which the gas can escape” (emphasis added), with the term “can” rendering the claim indefinite since it is unclear as to whether the claimed “gas” is affirmatively being required to “escape” as claimed, or is merely an optional limitation. Claim 14 is also rejected as depending on claim 13.
New claim 14 recites the limitation "the form". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
New claim 16 recites “the valve element is disconnected and spaced apart from interior surfaces of the diffuser element” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to whether the term “disconnected” is intended to mean that the “valve element” is capable/configured for a process of being connected/disconnected, or that the “valve element” is attached/connected to a structure that is not the claimed “interior surfaces of the diffuser element”.
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, 5-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahmathullah et al (US 11,942,653).
With respect to claim 1, Rahmathullah discloses a battery housing (Abstract), with the battery housing fully capable of being used in a vehicle for driving the vehicle. Fig. 9 depicts the battery housing comprises: a housing [200] that defines and surrounds an interior that contains a battery (e.g. which includes an energy storage or claimed “energy reservoir”) (col. 3, lines 1-6); a “valve assembly” (i.e. claimed “diffuser element”) [100] shown in figs. 1-2 to include ambient side-openings (i.e. claimed “diffuser outlets”) [120a], sidewalls (i.e. claimed “side faces”), and an “endcap” (i.e. claimed “head face”) [114a] (col. 3, lines 29-38; col. 4, lines 21-28; col. 7, lines 1-10), wherein the side faces are arranged between the housing [200] and the head face [114a] as shown in figs. 1-2 and 9; “housing seal” [130a] and “film” [140a] (i.e. claimed “valve element” [130a],[140a]) directly fixed to housing outlet as shown in figs. 2 and 5 (col. 4, lines 40-41; col. 5, lines 14-16; col. 6, lines 58-67), with figs. 2 and 4 showing the valve element [130a],[140a] detached from the diffuser element [100]. Figs. 1-2 and 9 further depict: the diffuser element [100] attached to an exterior of the housing [200]; a “valve opening” (i.e. claimed “housing outlet”) [210a], to which the housing outlet [210a] is configured to discharge a gas out of the interior in an outgoing direction to the diffuser element [100] (col. 3, lines 19-38; col. 4, lines 29-53); wherein the outgoing direction is directed from the housing outlet [210a] towards the head face [114a], with the diffuser outlets [120a] arranged on the side faces (col. 4, lines 29-53).
With respect to claim 2, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 1-2 the head face [114a] is devoid of holes (col. 5, lines 25-28).
With respect to claims 3 and 5-6, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 1-2 the diffuser outlets [120a] as slot-shaped, and two diffuser outlets [120a] are arranged on each of the side faces that are arranged opposite each other (col. 7, lines 6-10).
With respect to claim 7, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 1-2 the diffuser element [100] is configured to redirect the gas flowing out in the outgoing direction and deliver the gas through the diffuser outlets [120a] to an ambient environment or atmosphere of the battery (col. 4, lines 29-53; col. 7, lines 6-10), as further shown by fig. 5 and “airflow pathway” [12a] of the gas (col. 2, lines 30-31; col. 5, lines 3-19).
With respect to claim 8, Rahmathullah further discloses in figs. 1-2 and 4-6 the valve element [130a],[140a] adjacent the housing outlet [210a], wherein the valve element [130a],[140a] is configured to be punctured (i.e. claimed “burst”) open when a pressure event of the gas inside the housing [200] reaches a threshold so that the gas is released from the interior of the housing [200] by way of the housing outlet [210a] via “airflow pathway” [12a] (col. 4, lines 40-53; col. 5, lines 49-58).
With respect to claim 9, Rahmathullah further discloses the battery has a seal [130a] that separates the diffuser element [100] from the interior of the housing [200] in a water-tight manner via elastomeric material or rubber (col. 6, lines 58-67).
With respect to claim 11, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 1-2 and 5 the diffuser element [100] has a “second end” (i.e. claimed “mounting face”) [104a] positioned opposite the head face [114a], the mounting face [104a] directly connected to the housing [200] (col. 5, lines 3-33; col. 6, lines 43-49).
With respect to claim 12, Rahmathullah further depicts in fig. 5 the side faces have portions (approximate to detail [120a]) that oriented oblique to the mounting face [104a] and head face [114a].
With respect to claim 13, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 5-7: that each side face includes the diffuser outlets [120a] through which the gas escapes via “airflow pathway” [12a] (col. 5, lines 3-19); and the head face [114a] is a closed structure that does not include any diffuser outlets [120a].
With respect to claim 14, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 2 and 4 each of the diffuser outlets [120a] is an elongated slot that has end portions that extend to the head face [114a].
With respect to claim 15, Rahmathullah further depicts in figs. 1-2 and 5 the valve element [130a],[140a] and the mounting face [104a] are mounted to a same surface of the housing [200] (col. 5, lines 3-33; col. 6, lines 43-49 and 58-67).
With respect to claim 16, Rahmathullah further depicts in fig. 5 the valve element [130a],[140a] is disconnected and spaced apart from interior surfaces of the diffuser element [100], in addition to figs. 2 and 4 also showing the valve element [130a],[140a] disconnected and spaced apart from interior surfaces of the diffuser element [100].
With respect to claim 17, Rahmathullah further depicts in fig. 5 the head face [114a] (which does not include detail(s) [112a] and/or [110a]) has a smaller perimeter than the mounting face [104a].
With respect to claim 18, Rahmathullah further depicts in fig. 5 the mounting face [104a] defined by an outer perimeter portion (i.e. claimed “shoulder”) near detail [130a] of the diffuser element [100] that extends outwardly and obliquely from the side faces. The cropped figure below to fig. 5 serves to clarify the claimed “shoulder”.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmathullah et al (US 11,942,653) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Casale et al (US 5,856,037).
With respect to claims 4 and 10, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Rahmathullah is limited in that while: 1) a distance between the housing [200] and the head face [114a] as shown in figs. 1-2, a particular distance is not suggested; and 2) the battery specifically being electronically connected to the drive of a motor vehicle for causing movement of the motor vehicle is not suggested.
Casale teaches a battery venting system for gases generated by a battery in a battery powered vehicle (Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-23; col. 3, lines 30-34). Casale further teaches in fig. 1 a “cover assembly” [30] and “battery case” [12] (e.g. housing [12],[30]) having a “vent mechanism” (i.e. diffuser element) [250] with vent openings on side surfaces of the diffuser element [250] and a head face (col. 4, lines 38-67; col. 5, lines 1-3), similar to the diffuser element [100] of Rahmathullah. Casale’s Fig. 7 shows a schematic for the diffuser element [250] is connected to an exterior of the housing [12],[30] via flange [292] (col. 4, lines 28-30; col. 10, lines 53-61), and fig. 5 shows a distance [p] of 0.74 inches (17.78 mm) between the head face (shown as “wall portion” [262]) and the flange [292] with the vent openings [326],[346] (col. 8, lines 20-40; col. 9, lines 43-46; col. 11, lines 41-47); it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the diffuser element [250] of Casale would still vent gas through the vent openings [326],[346] regardless of the distance between the head face and housing being 17.78 mm or “more than 50 millimeters” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to:
1) incorporate the distance of Casale as the distance for Rahmathullah since Rahmathullah fails to specify a particular distance, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Casale has shown the distance to be successful for a similar gas discharge or venting design as Rahmathullah; and
2) have the battery with diffuser element of Rahmathullah in the battery powered vehicle of Casale since Rahmathullah fails to specify a particular location and/or use of the battery, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Casale has shown a location and/or use for the battery and diffuser element in the battery powered vehicle with the gas discharge or venting for a battery similar to Rahmathullah.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-8 filed 12/31/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “which housing outlet”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been maintained for the new reasoning set forth above in the rejection.
Claim 8 has been amended to clarify the “valve element” (as supported by at least Specification p. 3, lines 12-23); the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
102 Rejections
On p. 7, Applicant argues that Rahmathullah (i.e. D1) does not teach the limitation “a valve element that is directly fixed to the housing outlet and detached from the diffuser element” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since: 1) the limitation presents a 112(b) clarity issue for the reasons given above in the 112 rejections; and 2) the valve element [130a],[140a]) is directly fixed to housing outlet as shown in figs. 2 and 5 (col. 4, lines 40-41; col. 5, lines 14-16; col. 6, lines 58-67), and figs. 2 and 4 showing the valve element [130a],[140a] detached from the diffuser element [100] (or at the very least is fully capable of being structurally detached from the diffuser element [100]).
On p. 7, Applicant argues that Rahmathullah (i.e. D1) does not teach plural “side faces” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as per the cropped figure below of Rahmathullah’s fig. 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
235
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus Rahmathullah teaches plural “side faces” as recited by claim 1.
All other arguments on p. 8 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights