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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/27/23, 4/5/23, 12/19/2, 9/20/24, 1/28/25, and 4/25/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/27/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0072195 A1 (“US’195”) in view of WO 2014/125641 A1 (“WO’641”), and US 2014/0113167 A1 (“US’167”).
As to Claim 1:
US’195 discloses:
a battery pack 1 including battery modules 20 and 21, each comprising multiple battery cells 2 ([0014]–[0016]; Figs. 1–2), thus teaching “a battery pack comprising battery cells”;
cell support members 30 and 31 that support the end portions 2c of the battery cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 8–11), corresponding to a battery cell holder in which battery cells are accommodated;
cell support member 30 supports one end of the cells while cell support member 31 supports the opposite end ([0031]–[0036]; Fig. 3), suggesting upper and lower end-support structures analogous to a first cell holder and second cell holder;
a thermal diffusion plate 6 disposed between cell support members 30 and 31, partitioning the exhaust space region ([0023]–[0025]; Figs. 6–7), corresponding to a separation member associated with the cell-support structure; and
an exhaust duct 3 having an exhaust passage 10 and an exhaust outlet port 10a configured to discharge gas to the outside of the pack ([0018], [0026], [0027]; Figs. 4–5), thereby teaching an exhaust discharge structure in a battery pack.
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an exhaust pipe extending from an outer side surface of a battery cell holder; and (2) that the exhaust pipe is in fluid communication with an exhaust path located between a first separation member and an outer side surface of the first cell holder. US’195 includes an internal exhaust duct and outlet opening, but does not teach an outwardly projecting pipe nor an exhaust path specifically located between a separation member and an outer side surface of a cell holder.
WO’641 discloses a gas exhaust pipe 35 that extends from an outer side surface of the battery module housing case ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 4–5). WO’641 further discloses that the pipe 35 is in fluid communication with an internal gas exhaust groove 24 formed in the bottom wall 23 of the housing case ([0173]–[0178]; Figs. 13–18). WO’641 therefore teaches the missing limitation of an exhaust pipe extending outward from a housing side wall and communicating with an interior exhaust path, which US’195 does not teach.
US’167 discloses a first separation plate 30 positioned in the battery case, forming a first exhaust space 61c between the plate and the outer wall surface of the case ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–21). The disclosure explains that cell vent gas enters an exhaust path located between a separation member and the outer wall and then flows into an external discharge duct ([0114]–[0121]). Thus, US’167 teaches the structural concept of an exhaust path located between a separation member and an outer side surface of the cell-housing structure—precisely the missing positional relationship not taught by US’195.
US’195, WO’641, and US’167 are all directed to battery modules/packs containing multiple battery cells and specifically address vent gas routing, internal exhaust paths, and external discharge structures. They are within the same field of endeavor (battery pack structural design with gas-management mechanisms) and also solve the same problems—safe and efficient removal of internal battery gas. They therefore qualify as analogous art under both prongs of the test.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by incorporating (a) the outwardly projecting exhaust pipe of WO’641 that extends from an outer side surface of a battery housing and (b) the exhaust-path arrangement of US’167 in which an exhaust path is formed between a separation member and the outer side surface of a cell-holding structure.
Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because all three references teach improvements in battery-pack gas management, and combining their teachings would predictably result in an improved vent-routing structure that safely channels gas from internal exhaust passages to a side-mounted exhaust pipe. The modifications constitute the routine and predictable application of known vent-management structures to US’195’s battery pack.
As to Claim 2:
US’195 further discloses that battery cells are supported by first and second cell support members 30 and 31 which receive the end portions 2c of the battery cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11), thereby defining a region in which battery cells are accommodated when the support members are assembled with the exhaust duct 3 and thermal diffusion plate 6 ([0023]–[0025]). This corresponds to “an accommodation space of the battery cells defined by the first cell holder and the second cell holder assembled together.”
US’195 also discloses that gas discharged from the battery cells is carried through an exhaust passage 10 in the exhaust duct 3 ([0018], [0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5), and that the exhaust structure is located between the pair of cell support members, which correspond to the upper and lower support structures of the module. The exhaust outlet port 10a is positioned between the facing support members 30 and 31 (US’195, ¶ [0027]; Figs. 4–5), teaching the concept of an exhaust discharge opening positioned vertically between the two cell-supporting structures.
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an exhaust pipe extending externally and arranged vertically between an upper surface of the first holder and a lower surface of the second holder; and (2) that the exhaust pipe is in fluid communication with an exhaust duct that is separated from the accommodation space of the battery cells.US’195 provides an internal exhaust outlet port 10a but does not disclose a pipe extending from the side of a cell holder or the specific separated exhaust-duct geometry.
WO’641 teaches a gas exhaust pipe 35 that extends from the outer side surface of the battery housing case 2 and is directly connected to an internal gas exhaust groove 24 formed in the housing ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5). WO’641 further teaches that the pipe 35 is in fluid communication with this internal exhaust groove 24, which constitutes an exhaust duct separate from the battery accommodation region ([0173]–[0178]; Figs. 13–18). Thus, WO’641 provides the missing features of (i) an exhaust pipe extending outward from the outer side surface of the cell-housing structure, (ii) the exhaust pipe’s positional relationship with an exhaust duct, and (iii) fluid communication between the pipe and the internal exhaust duct.
US’167 discloses that a first separation plate 30 inside case 20 forms a first exhaust space 61c located between the separation plate 30 and the outer wall of the case ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–21). US’167 further teaches that the exhaust gas flows from this separated exhaust space into an external discharge duct ([0114]–[0121]; Fig. 22), explicitly teaching an exhaust duct that is separated from the accommodation space 50 of the battery cells. US’167 therefore teaches the missing relationship that the exhaust duct is physically separated from, and external to, the cell accommodation region.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by incorporating (i) the outwardly extending exhaust pipe structure of WO’641, and (ii) the separated exhaust-duct arrangement of US’167.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because combining the externally mounted exhaust pipe of WO’641 with the separated exhaust-path geometry of US’167 would predictably improve the vent-gas evacuation performance of the internal exhaust passage disclosed in US’195. The resulting configuration would provide a separated exhaust duct and an exhaust pipe arranged vertically between upper and lower cell-support structures and fluidly connected to the duct.
As to Claim 3:
US’195 discloses a battery pack including battery modules 20 and 21, each containing multiple battery cells 2 ([0014]–[0016]; Figs. 1–2). US’195 further discloses first and second cell support members 30 and 31 that receive the end portions 2c of the battery cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11), corresponding to the first and second cell holders recited in claim 2. As shown in paragraphs [0018], [0026]–[0027] and Figs. 4–5 of US’195, the exhaust outlet port 10a is formed between these upper and lower cell-support members, indicating that the exhaust discharge structure occupies a position vertically between the two holders.
However, US’195 does not disclose (1) a circuit board located on the first cell holder, (2) a circuit board electrically connected to battery cells, nor (3) that the exhaust pipe (as opposed to an outlet opening) is positioned closer to the upper surface of the first cell holder than to the lower surface of the second cell holder.
WO’641 teaches a gas exhaust pipe 35 that extends from an outer side surface of the battery housing and is in fluid communication with an internal exhaust duct ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5). This teaches the missing “exhaust pipe” feature that is not disclosed in US’195, which instead uses an exhaust outlet opening 10a rather than a projecting pipe. WO’641 therefore provides the explicit teaching of an outwardly extending exhaust pipe that can be positioned at a selected vertical height along the housing structure.
US’167 additionally teaches a circuit board (control PCB 90) mounted on the upper region of the battery module case, above the cell arrangement ([0070]–[0073]; Figs. 17–18), and electrically connected to the battery cells for monitoring and control. US’167 further teaches that exhaust gas rises into a first exhaust space 61c located adjacent to the upper region of the module and then transitions into an exhaust duct near the upper region of the case ([0074]–[0078], [0114]–[0121]; Figs. 19–22), showing an exhaust-discharge structure vertically closer to the upper end of the module assembly. These teachings correspond to the missing positional requirement that the exhaust pipe be located closer to the upper surface of the first cell holder than to the lower surface of the second cell holder.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by adding (1) the circuit board structure taught by US’167, mounted on the upper cell-holder region and electrically connected to the cells, and (2) the outwardly extending exhaust pipe taught by WO’641, positioned at the upper portion of the cell-holder assembly as suggested by US’167’s upper-region exhaust-space geometry.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so because combining a circuit-monitoring board with an upper-placed exhaust structure is a predictable, beneficial enhancement for monitoring and controlling battery-cell operation while safely routing vent gas externally. The combination yields the claimed arrangement in which a circuit board is located on the first cell holder and the exhaust pipe is positioned vertically closer to the upper surface of the first cell holder than to the lower surface of the second cell holder.
As to Claim 4:
US’195 further discloses first and second cell support members 30 and 31, which receive the upper and lower end portions of the battery cells, corresponding to the “first cell holder” and “second cell holder” ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11). US’195 also discloses an exhaust outlet port 10a positioned between the upper and lower cell holders ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose that the exhaust outlet is an exhaust pipe, nor that such a pipe protrudes outside of the first cell holder or that it protrudes from an outer side surface of the first cell holder.
WO’641 teaches an explicit gas exhaust pipe 35 that protrudes outward from the outer side surface of battery housing case 2 ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the exhaust outlet 10a of US’195 by incorporating the protruding exhaust pipe 35 of WO’641, positioned at the outer side surface of the first cell-holder region, as further supported by the external exhaust-duct geometry taught in US’167. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to apply these teachings because externalizing the gas-exhaust structure facilitates more efficient and safer vent-gas discharge, reduces internal pressure accumulation, and represents a predictable design improvement already used in WO’641 and US’167.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0072195 A1 (“US’195”) in view of WO 2014/125641 A1 (“WO’641”), and US 2014/0113167 A1 (“US’167”), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of KR 2012-0046273 A (“KR’273”).
As to Claim 5:
US’195 further discloses first and second cell support members 30 and 31 that receive the upper and lower end portions 2c of the battery cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11), corresponding to the “first cell holder” and “second cell holder” recited in Claim 2. US’195 also discloses an exhaust outlet 10a positioned between the cell holders ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5), directing vent gas away from the battery cells.
US’195 therefore discloses the presence of first and second cell holders and an exhaust outlet located between them.
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) that the battery cells include first and second groups arranged in a vertically inverted pattern, (2) that the first cell holder includes an upper exhaust hole on its upper surface, (3) that gas from an upper end portion of an upper group is directed toward such an upper exhaust hole, or (4) that the second cell holder includes a lower exhaust hole on its lower surface, receiving gas from a lower end portion of a lower group of cells.
WO’641 discloses a gas exhaust pipe 35 connected to an internal exhaust groove 24 ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5), teaching the concept of creating dedicated exhaust holes and pathways at selected surfaces of a battery housing. While WO’641 does not disclose vertically separated upper/lower holes, it teaches the structural practice of forming dedicated gas outlets from designated surfaces, which is relevant to Claim 5’s “upper exhaust hole” and “lower exhaust hole” concepts.
US’167 discloses exhaust-space structures above and below the battery cell stack—specifically a first exhaust space 61c above the cells and a second exhaust space 62c below the cells ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–22). These exhaust spaces receive vent gas from the upper end and lower end of the cell stack respectively. Although US’167 discloses “spaces,” not “holes,” it nevertheless teaches the functional equivalent of upper-directed and lower-directed exhaust flow pathways, corresponding to the recited “upper exhaust hole” and “lower exhaust hole” concept.
KR’273 discloses that the battery pack includes battery units 300A and 300B arranged in an alternating, vertically inverted orientation—battery unit 300A has its positive terminal facing upward while unit 300B has its negative terminal facing upward (KR’273, p. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). This arrangement teaches the claim’s “first group” and “second group” of cells arranged in a vertically inverted pattern.
KR’273 further discloses the presence of upper vent holes 1021 and 1201 aligned above the upper ends of the vertically oriented battery units (KR’273, p. 5; Figs. 4–5), allowing gas exhausted from the upper end portion of the upward-facing cells to be directed toward an upper exhaust passage. These structures correspond to an upper exhaust hole on the upper surface of the first cell-holder region.
KR’273 also discloses that exhaust pathways exist on both the upper and lower sides of the battery cell arrangement (p.5), which, in combination with US’167’s lower exhaust space 62c, supports the concept of a lower exhaust hole receiving gas from a lower end portion of the inverted second group of cells.
US’195, WO’641, US’167, and KR’273 all relate to battery packs or battery modules, and each addresses exhaust-gas management, cell-support structures, and/or electrical control circuitry within multi-cell lithium battery systems. All four references lie in the same field of endeavor and address similar engineering problems regarding thermal and gas evacuation control in compact battery assemblies. Therefore, the secondary references are analogous art to US’195.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by adopting (1) the vertically inverted cell orientation taught by KR’273, thereby forming first and second groups of cells with opposite vertical orientations, (2) the upper exhaust-hole architecture of KR’273 for directing gas upward from the first group, and (3) the upper/lower differentiated exhaust-path structures taught by US’167 and WO’641 to form corresponding upper and lower exhaust holes.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to implement these features because they provide predictable improvements in controlled vent-gas management, allowing gas exhausted from upper and lower cell ends to be routed safely into designated exhaust openings.
As to Claim 6:
US’195 further discloses first and second cell support members 30 and 31 that receive the end portions 2c of the battery cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11), corresponding to the “first cell holder” and “second cell holder” recited in Claim 5. As discussed for Claim 5, US’195 also provides an exhaust outlet 10a between the cell holders ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) a circuit board on the first cell holder; (2) an upper exhaust hole on the upper surface of the first cell holder; or (3) the positional relationship that the upper exhaust hole is spaced apart from the circuit board.
US’167 teaches a circuit board (control PCB 90) mounted at the upper region of the battery module ([0070]–[0073]; Figs. 17–18). US’167 further discloses an upper exhaust space 61c situated away from PCB 90 and formed between a separation plate 30 and the outer case ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–21), demonstrating that exhaust-path structures are spatially separated from the PCB region. Although US’167 discloses exhaust spaces rather than discrete holes, it supplies the missing teachings of (1) a circuit board on the upper holder region, and (2) spatial separation between the PCB and the exhaust-flow region.
KR’273 teaches upper exhaust holes 1021, 1201 located above the upper ends of vertically oriented battery groups (KR’273, p. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). These holes serve as dedicated upper exhaust openings through which vent gas from the upper end of the first (upward-oriented) cell group is directed. KR’273 therefore teaches the missing element of an upper exhaust hole on the upper surface of the first cell-holder region. Additionally, KR’273 shows that the upper exhaust holes are positioned away from the electrical connection region of the modules (Figs. 3–5), supporting the requirement that the upper exhaust hole be spaced apart from the PCB location taught in US’167.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by incorporating (i) the circuit board placement taught by US’167 on the upper-holder region, (ii) the upper exhaust-hole structure taught by KR’273 on the upper surface of the first cell holder, and (iii) the exhaust-feature design practices taught by WO’641. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because combining a circuit board on the upper holder with spaced-apart exhaust-routing holes enhances monitoring, thermal response, and safe gas evacuation—design improvements well established in the battery-pack art.
As to Claim 7:
US’195 further discloses first and second cell support members 30 and 31 that receive the upper and lower end portions 2c of the cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11). US’195 additionally discloses an exhaust outlet 10a formed in the side surface of the module housing ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an upper exhaust hole at an edge of the first cell holder, or (2) a lower exhaust hole at an edge of the second cell holder. US’195 only discloses a single side-wall exhaust outlet rather than upper and lower edge-located exhaust holes.
WO’641 teaches forming a dedicated gas-exhaust opening, including an exhaust pipe 35 on a side edge of a battery-module housing ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5). WO’641 thus reinforces the design practice of placing vent outlets at peripheral edges of battery-holder structures. Although WO’641 does not teach upper/lower exhaust differentiation, it supports the general concept of placing exhaust-interface features on edge regions of a cell-supporting housing.
US’167 teaches upper and lower exhaust regions in a battery module—specifically, an upper exhaust space 61c and a lower exhaust space 62c ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–21). These exhaust pathways lie near the perimeter of the module casing and at the respective upper and lower structural surfaces. While US’167 discloses exhaust spaces rather than discrete holes, it teaches that upper and lower ends of the cell assembly are to be vented through region-specific discharge pathways located near the casing edges. This provides the missing teaching of functionally differentiated upper and lower exhaust pathways.
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021 and 1201 arranged at the edge region of the upper holder plate above the first (upward-oriented) group of battery cells (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). These holes specifically route gas from the upper end portion of the vertically oriented upper cell group. KR’273 therefore teaches the missing structure of a discrete upper exhaust hole located at an edge of the upper (first) cell holder.
KR’273 also shows a vertically inverted cell arrangement (battery units 300A, 300B) with vent routing occurring at opposite ends of the module. When combined with US’167’s disclosure of lower exhaust pathways 62c, a person skilled in the art would infer the obvious placement of a lower exhaust hole at the edge of the lower (second) cell holder in symmetry with the upper edge-located exhaust hole disclosed in KR’273.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 to include (i) the upper edge-mounted exhaust holes taught by KR’273, and (ii) corresponding lower-end exhaust holes suggested by the lower exhaust space 62c of US’167, while applying the edge-placement exhaust-interface principles taught by WO’641.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to implement these features to achieve improved bidirectional venting from vertically inverted battery groups and to route gas through dedicated edge locations for predictable evacuation and thermal safety.
As to Claim 8:
US’195 further discloses an exhaust port 10a for discharging gas from the battery module ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an exhaust duct continuously extending in the height direction at edges of the first cell holder and the second cell holder, (2) that the upper exhaust hole is connected to the exhaust duct at an upper end of the duct, (3) that the lower exhaust hole is connected to the exhaust duct at a lower end of the duct, or (4) that an exhaust pipe is connected to the exhaust duct at a position vertically between its upper and lower ends.
US’195 only teaches a single side-wall exhaust port rather than a vertically arranged multi-inlet duct spanning between upper and lower holders.
WO’641 teaches a battery pack having a gas exhaust pipe 35 connected to an internal gas-guiding groove 24 formed along the side edge of the module housing ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5). WO’641 therefore teaches placing a gas-transport passage at an edge region of a battery holder and connecting an exhaust pipe to it. Although WO’641 does not disclose a vertical duct with upper and lower holes, it provides motivation and structural teaching for forming elongated gas-guiding channels at housing edges and attaching an exhaust pipe to such channels.
US’167 discloses an upper exhaust space 61c and a lower exhaust space 62c formed at the upper end and lower end of the battery module, respectively ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–22). US’167 teaches vertically arranged, end-located exhaust-flow regions spanning the height of the battery stack. This establishes the concept of exhaust-flow entry points located at upper and lower ends of a battery holder, functionally corresponding to the claimed upper and lower exhaust holes. Although US’167 discloses exhaust “spaces” instead of holes, the vertical alignment and dual-end exhaust arrangement correspond to the missing portions of Claim 8.
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021/1201 located at edge regions of the upper holder plate above the first (upward-facing) battery group (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). KR’273 therefore teaches that upper exhaust holes may be positioned at the outer edge of the holder and at the upper end of the assembly. KR’273 also depicts a vertically inverted battery arrangement (battery units 300A and 300B) with vent routing occurring at opposite upper and lower ends of the module, implying that the lower portion of the module would include a corresponding lower exhaust opening at the lower edge—consistent with the lower exhaust-space disclosure of US’167.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify US’195 by incorporating: (i) the edge-mounted gas-transfer architecture of WO’641, (ii) the vertically separated upper and lower exhaust-flow regions of US’167, and (iii) the edge-located upper exhaust holes taught by KR’273.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve vent-gas distribution, provide more reliable gas evacuation from both upper and lower ends of inverted battery groups, and route the combined exhaust through a continuous duct with an intermediate exhaust-pipe connection for improved packaging, manufacturability, and safety.
As to Claim 9:
US’195 further discloses an exhaust port 10a for discharging gas from the battery module ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an exhaust duct continuously extending in the height direction at edges of the first and second cell holders, (2) an upper exhaust hole and a lower exhaust hole located at opposite ends of such a duct, nor (3) that the upper and lower exhaust holes together form a single tubular shape continuously extending in the height direction.
US’195 only teaches a single side-wall exhaust port, not a vertically continuous duct with upper and lower openings.
WO’641 teaches forming a tubular gas exhaust pipe 35 connected to an internal gas-guiding groove 24 located on an edge of the battery housing ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 2–5). WO’641 therefore teaches both (i) placing gas-evacuation structures on edge regions of the holder and (ii) using a tubular exhaust passage. Although WO’641 does not teach upper and lower intake openings, it teaches the structural feasibility of linking gas pathways into a single tubular conduit, addressing Claim 9’s requirement that the upper and lower exhaust holes “form a single tubular shape.”
US’167 discloses an upper exhaust space 61c and a lower exhaust space 62c positioned at opposite vertical ends of the battery module ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–22). These provide functionally distinct upper and lower exhaust entry regions. Although US’167 discloses “spaces” rather than holes, it clearly teaches that exhaust routing should occur from both the upper end and the lower end of the module, precisely corresponding to the upper and lower exhaust-hole locations required in Claim 9.
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021 and 1201 located at edge regions on the upper holder plate (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5), providing the missing teaching of a hole at the upper end of an exhaust-flow path. KR’273 also shows an inverted battery arrangement (units 300A/300B), implying that corresponding exhaust structures must exist at the lower end of the battery arrangement to vent the downward-facing end portions of the second group of cells. When considered with the explicit lower exhaust space 62c in US’167, KR’273 confirms the use of upper and lower exhaust openings at opposite ends of a vertical module structure.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by (i) applying the tubular exhaust-path design taught by WO’641, (ii) incorporating upper and lower exhaust intake points as taught by US’167, and (iii) locating the upper exhaust hole at the module edge as explicitly taught by KR’273, and by symmetry placing the lower exhaust hole at the opposite end of the same vertical duct.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to link these upper and lower intake points into a continuous, tubular, height-extending exhaust duct to efficiently route vent gas from both ends of the vertically inverted battery groups, as such a structure would improve vent-gas evacuation, reduce pressure buildup, and simplify routing by unifying the flow into a single discharge conduit.
As to Claim 10:
US’195 further discloses an exhaust outlet 10a formed in a side region of the housing ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an upper exhaust path on the upper surface of the first cell holder in fluid communication with the upper end portion of the first group of battery cells and with an upper exhaust hole, or (2) a lower exhaust path on the lower surface of the second cell holder in fluid communication with the lower end portion of the second group of battery cells and with a lower exhaust hole.
US’195 provides only a single side-wall exhaust opening and does not disclose upper/lower exhaust routing tied to upper/lower cell orientations.
US’167 discloses an upper exhaust space 61c formed above the battery cells and in fluid communication with the upper end portions of the stacked cells ([0074]–[0076]; Figs. 19–21). US’167 further discloses a lower exhaust space 62c disposed at the lower end of the module and in fluid communication with the lower end portions of the battery cells ([0077]–[0078]; Figs. 20–22).
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021 and 1201 located on the upper surface and at the edge of the module above the first (upward-oriented) group of battery cells (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). Gas from the upper end portions of the upward-facing cell group is directed toward these upper exhaust holes. KR’273 therefore provides the missing structural teaching of an upper exhaust hole on the upper surface of the first cell holder, and an upper exhaust path from the upper cell ends to that hole.
KR’273 also shows vertically inverted cell groups (300A and 300B), indicating that the second group has its lower end portions directed downward. In combination with US’167’s explicit disclosure of lower exhaust space 62c, KR’273 implies that a lower exhaust path serving the downward-facing cell ends would be provided at the opposite surface of the structure.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by incorporating: (i) the upper and lower exhaust routing concepts of US’167, (ii) the upper-surface exhaust-hole structure of KR’273, and (iii) the defined gas-pathway architecture taught by WO’641.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide dedicated upper and lower exhaust paths corresponding to the upper and lower end orientations of the battery cell groups to achieve predictable benefits, including improved vent-gas evacuation, enhanced safety, and more efficient thermal management.
As to Claim 11:
US’195 discloses a battery pack including battery cells 2 supported by first and second cell holders 30 and 31, which receive upper and lower end portions of the cells ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11). US’195 also discloses an exhaust opening 10a ([0026]–[0027]; Figs. 4–5).
However, US’195 does not disclose:(1) a second separation member located on the lower surface of the second cell holder, (2) the second separation member forming a boundary of a lower exhaust path, or (3) a first separation member located on the upper surface of the first cell holder that forms a boundary of an upper exhaust path.
US’195 provides support members for the cells but does not disclose structural separation members establishing exhaust-path boundaries above or below the holders.
US’167 discloses two exhaust regions an upper exhaust space 61c, and a lower exhaust space 62c ([0074]–[0078]; Figs. 19–22). These exhaust spaces are each formed by structural components — specifically, an upper boundary plate and a lower boundary plate — that separate the exhaust regions from the cell chamber. US’167 therefore teaches a first separation member forming the boundary of an upper exhaust path, and a second separation member forming the boundary of a lower exhaust path. This directly corresponds to the claimed functional roles of the first and second separation members.
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021 and 1201 positioned above the upper-facing battery cells (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). These holes are located on an upper structural plate, providing context for an upper surface structure that works as part of an upper exhaust-flow boundary. KR’273 also discloses vertically inverted cell groups (300A and 300B), implying that lower-oriented cells require a lower exhaust-routing region, consistent with the lower exhaust boundary 62c taught in US’167.
Thus, KR’273 supports the architecture in which upper and lower surfaces of the cell holders serve as exhaust-path boundaries.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by incorporating: (i) the upper and lower exhaust-boundary structures of US’167, which teach separation members that confine and shape upper and lower exhaust paths; (ii) the exhaust-region structuring principles of WO’641; and (iii) the upper-surface exhaust architecture of KR’273, which confirms the use of boundary-forming upper layers in vent routing.
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to add such separation members to predictably improve vent-gas management, maintain thermal isolation, and provide clearly defined exhaust-flow channels above and below the cell groups.
As to Claim 12:
US’195 discloses a battery pack including battery cells 2 supported by first and second cell holders 30 and 31 ([0031]–[0036]; Figs. 3, 8–11). US’195 also discloses an exhaust port 10a ([0026]–[0027]).
However, US’195 does not disclose: (1) an upper exhaust path located between (i) the upper surface of the first cell holder and (ii) a first separation member, nor (2) a lower exhaust path located between (i) the lower surface of the second cell holder and (ii) a second separation member, as required in Claim 12.
US’195 lacks both the “between-layer” channel structure and the explicit separation plates that bound exhaust paths.
US’167 discloses both an upper exhaust space 61c ([0074]–[0076]; Figs. 19–21), and a lower exhaust space 62c ([0076]–[0078]; Figs. 20–22). Each exhaust space is created between a structural boundary plate and the corresponding surface of the cell-supporting region. Thus, US’167 teaches an upper exhaust path between the upper surface of the holder region and a separation plate forming the boundary of the upper exhaust flow path, and a lower exhaust path between the lower holder surface and a second separation plate forming the boundary of the lower exhaust path.
KR’273 discloses upper exhaust holes 1021 and 1201 located on the upper structural plate above the upward-facing battery cells (KR’273, pp. 4–5; Figs. 3–5). While KR’273 does not explicitly depict the boundary plates taught in US’167, it confirms that the upper surface of the first cell holder functions as part of the exhaust-routing structure. KR’273 also describes vertically inverted cell groups (300A and 300B), implying the need for exhaust routing at both upper and lower ends, which corresponds to the upper and lower exhaust spaces of US’167.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery pack of US’195 by adopting: (i) the upper and lower exhaust-path geometries taught by US’167, which disclose exhaust spaces formed “between” a separation plate and the cell-holder surfaces; (ii) the exhaust-routing structural design principles of WO’641; and (iii) the upper exhaust architecture shown in KR’273, which confirms that the upper holder surface functions as an exhaust boundary.
A person skilled in the art would be motivated to do so to achieve predictable improvements in gas management, thermal relief, and isolation of vent pathways above and below the battery-cell groups.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,266 (“US’266”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to Claims 1–17:
Claims 1–22 of the US’266 patent recite a battery pack comprising:
battery cells arranged in a vertically inverted pattern;
an upper holder and a lower holder assembled to define an accommodation space for the battery cells;
an exhaust pipe protruding outwardly from an outer side surface of the holder;
an exhaust duct extending in a height direction and connected to upper and lower exhaust holes;
upper and lower exhaust paths on the upper and lower surfaces of the respective holders;
upper and lower separation members forming boundaries of the upper and lower exhaust paths;
opening regions and block regions in the separation members;
hollow protrusion portions penetrating the separation members through the opening regions; and
various geometrical relationships positioning the exhaust pipe, exhaust ducts, exhaust holes, and circuit board.
The instant claims recite: battery cells; first and second cell holders to which upper and lower portions of the cells are assembled; first separation member on the first cell holder; exhaust pipe extending from an outer side surface of the holder and in fluid communication with an exhaust path between the first separation member and the outer side surface of the first holder;upper and lower exhaust holes; exhaust duct extending in a height direction and connected to those holes at upper and lower ends;
exhaust pipe connected at a mid-height position;
upper and lower exhaust paths;
first and second separation members defining boundaries of those paths;
opening regions, block regions, and hollow protrusion portions penetrating the separation members; and
continuous fluid-communication shapes formed by the spaces between the protrusions.
The subject matter of claims 1–17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in claims 1–22 of the US’266 patent. Both sets of claims are directed to the same overall battery-pack architecture—including vertically inverted cell arrangement, upper and lower holders, exhaust pipe positioned on the side surface between top and bottom surfaces, upper/lower exhaust holes connected to a vertical exhaust duct, and exhaust paths bounded by upper and lower separation members having opening and block regions with hollow protrusions passing through them. The structural and functional relationships required by the instant claims are fully met by, or are obvious variations of, the relationships already claimed in the US’266 patent.
Thus, the claims of the instant application differ from those of the US’266 patent only in ways that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. No evidence has been presented that would establish patentable distinctness or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723