DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/127,244, “MOTOR VEHICLE TRACTION BATTERY MODULE”, was filed with the USPTO on 3/28/2023 and has a foreign priority document of DE10 2022 107 489.7 filed on 3/30/2022.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 1/16/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/127,244, filed on 3/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement (IDS) is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 1/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 7 has been canceled by Applicant.
The amendments and remarks filed on 1/16/2026 are sufficient to cure the previous drawings, claim objections, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schüssler et al. teaches a motor vehicle traction battery module (14, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of fluidically tight battery cells (16, Fig. 1) arranged in a row (see [0038]), each of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) having a degassing opening (24, Fig. 2) and the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) of the battery cells (16, Fig. 2) open into a single degassing passage (12, Fig. 2) in a fluidically parallel manner, wherein:
the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 1) leads to a single module degassing opening (an outlet opening of collecting channel 22, see [0039]) so that a single degassing passage flow direction (40, Fig. 5) is defined, and
each of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 5) that is downstream of at least one other one of the cell degassing openings (24, Fig. 2) is associated with a degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) that is biased into a closed position (28 is closed at t1, Fig. 5), wherein each degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) is hinged via a flap joint (28a, Fig. 5) at an upstream flap edge (edge, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) with respect to the single degassing passage flow direction (40, Fig. 5), the degassing guide flap (28, Fig. 5) closes (t1, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in a closed position (28 closes at t1, Fig. 5) and releases (t2,3, Fig. 5) the cell degassing opening (24, Fig. 5) in an open position (28 opens t2 and t3, Fig. 5) during cell degassing (t1-t3, Fig. 5), wherein the single degassing passage (12, Fig. 5) has a upper wall (44, Fig. 5) and is sized such that each guide flap (28, Fig. 5) contacts (28b contacts 44, Fig. 5; see [0050]) the upper wall (44, Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (44, Fig. 5) in the open position (28 opens at t3, Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
1875
2792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schüssler et al. does not teach the upper wall is a sloped upper wall and wherein the single degassing passage has a passage cross-section (A1, A6) that increases from upstream to downstream.
Wang et al. teaches wherein the single degassing passage (134, Fig. 9) has a sloped upper wall (sloped upper wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) and a passage cross-section (A1, A6, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) that increases from upstream to downstream (see Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
1730
1790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the single degassing passage taught by Schüssler et al. to have a sloped upper wall and passage cross-section that increases from upstream to downstream as taught by Wang et al. such that the guide flap contacts the sloped upper wall in the open position because Wang et al. teaches that it is known in the art to form a gas discharge with such sloped upper wall and cross-sectional configuration; hence, the modification is a simple modification that would yield the same predictable result of discharging gas from the battery to reduce the internal pressure and improve safety performance of the battery (see Wang et al. [0032]); and Schüssler et al. teaches “the length of the flap is greater than the wall distance between the upper and the lower wall so that the flap open-up is supported on an overlying surface of the degassing channel, which the surface is provided by the upper wall”. Moreover, 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches further comprising opening stops (44/28b, Schüssler Fig. 5) in the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5), the opening stops (44/28b, Schüssler Fig. 5) being disposed to limit an opening movement of the degassing guide flap (limited when 28b contacts 44 at t3, Schüssler Fig. 5; see Schüssler [0050]) to a maximum opening angle (maximum opening angle, see Schüssler Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) of less than 90° in a degassing event of a battery cell (t3, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches wherein each of the degassing guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is configured to fluidically close an upstream portion of the single degassing passage (upstream portion of 12, see Schüssler Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5) when the degassing guide flap (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is stopped at the open position (t3, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches wherein each of the degassing guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) is integral with a passage wall (36, Schüssler Fig. 5) of the degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches wherein each of the cell degassing openings (24, Schüssler Fig. 2) is associated with a fluidically tight rupture disc (26, Schüssler Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches wherein the passage cross-section (A1, A6, see Wang Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) of the single degassing passage (134, Wang Fig. 9) increases from upstream to downstream by at least 30% (appears 30%; see Wang Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 11, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches wherein the guide flaps (28, Schüssler Fig. 5) are formed in a lower wall (36, Schüssler Fig. 5) of the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5) that faces the sloped upper wall (44, Schüssler Fig. 5).
Claims 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1) in view of Haug (DE102013201365A1, provided on the IDS dated 3/28/2023, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding Claim 4, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. is silent wherein the flap joint is a bendable material bridge.
Haug teaches wherein the flap joint (5, Fig. 3) is a bendable material bridge (5 is bendable see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flap joint taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. to be a bendable material bridge taught by Haug so that the flap can move when the chamber overpressures during cell degassing (see Haug [0033]).
Regarding Claim 9, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage has no guide flaps.
Haug teaches a single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) has 3 guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) and 4 cell degassing openings (30, Fig. 3). None of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) are arranged in the single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) and are part of the single degassing passage (see Fig. 3; [0029]). When an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle traction battery module taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by 1) reducing the number of guide flaps to one less than the number of cell degassing openings; 2) by rearranging and configuring the guided flaps in the single degassing passage such that none of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, the guide flaps are part of the passage, when an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down as taught by Haug. Doing so would reduce the number of guide flaps and subdivide the single degassing passage into various air-tight regions to increase the safety of the battery module (see Haug [0006]) also would protect intact battery cells in a simple manner (see Haug [0008]).
Regarding Claim 10, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches the cell degassing opening (24, Schüssler Fig. 5) that is most upstream (most upstream, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) in the single degassing passage (12, Schüssler Fig. 5) is arranged at a smallest cross-section (A1, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) of the passage cross-section.
Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach the cell degassing opening at the location discussed above has no guide flaps.
Haug teaches a single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) has 3 guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) and 4 cell degassing openings (30, Fig. 3). None of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) are arranged in the single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) and are part of the single degassing passage (see Fig. 3; [0029]). When an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle traction battery module taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by 1) reducing the number of guide flaps to one less than the number of cell degassing openings; 2) by rearranging and configuring the guided flaps in the single degassing passage such that none of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, the guide flaps are part of the passage, when an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down as taught by Haug. Doing so would reduce the number of guide flaps and subdivide the single degassing passage into various air-tight regions to increase the safety of the battery module (see Haug [0006]) also would protect intact battery cells in a simple manner (see Haug [0008]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1), in view of Yamanaka (US 20190051951 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. is silent wherein the lower wall is directly connected to the sloped upper wall by a sloped side wall.
Wang et al. teaches wherein the lower wall (15, Fig. 9; lower wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) is directly connected to the upper wall (172, Fig. 9; upper wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) by a side wall (side wall, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the single degassing passage taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by adding a side wall such that the lower wall is directly connected to the upper wall by the side wall taught by Wang et al. Doing so would form a passage so that the heat and the gas can be discharged to an outside of the battery (see Wang [0105]).
However, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach the side wall is a sloped side wall.
Yamanaka teaches a sloped side wall (31(30), Fig. 6) by providing an inclined surface (53B, Fig. 6) at the bottom of battery cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle traction battery module taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by adding the inclined surface on the bottom of the battery module where battery cells are placed on such that having a sloped side wall as taught by Yamanaka to avoid back flow of the gas from the most downstream cell (see Yamanaka [0080]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1), in view of Yamanaka (US 20190051951 A1) in view of Haug (DE102013201365A1, provided on the IDS dated 3/28/2023, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding Claim 13, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Yamanaka teaches wherein the cell degassing opening (24, Schüssler Fig. 5) that is most upstream (most upstream, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) is positioned beneath the sloped side wall (31(30), Yamanaka Fig. 6).
Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Yamanaka does not teach wherein the cell degassing opening that is most upstream in the single degassing passage has no guide flaps.
Haug teaches a single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) has 3 guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) and 4 cell degassing openings (30, Fig. 3). None of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, guide flaps (10, Fig. 3) are arranged in the single degassing passage (20, Fig. 3) and are part of the single degassing passage (see Fig. 3; [0029]). When an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle traction battery module taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Yamanaka by 1) reducing the number of guide flaps to one less than the number of cell degassing openings; 2) by rearranging and configuring the guided flaps in the single degassing passage such that none of the cell degassing opening has a guide flap, instead, the guide flaps are part of the passage, when an individual cell degassing, it pushes all guide flaps down as taught by Haug. Doing so would reduce the number of guide flaps and subdivide the single degassing passage into various air-tight regions to increase the safety of the battery module (see Haug [0006]) also would protect intact battery cells in a simple manner (see Haug [0008]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schüssler et al. (US 2022/0271390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1), in view of Angerbauer et al. (DE 102012207770 A1, citation see machine translation)
Regarding Claim 14, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. does not teach further comprising a seal having a first side that abuts the lower wall and a second side that abuts a top end of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening of said one of the battery cells.
Angerbauer et al. teaches further comprising a seal (24, Fig. 1) having a first side (first side, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) that abuts the lower wall (lower wall, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) and a second side (second side, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) that abuts a top end (top end, see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1-1) of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening (22, Fig. 1) of said one of the battery cells (10, fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
2462
2351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle traction battery module taught by Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. by adding the seal taught by Angerbauer such that further comprising a seal having a first side that abuts the lower wall and a second side that abuts a top end of one of the battery cells, wherein the seal surrounds the cell degassing opening of said one of the battery cells taught by Angerbauer. Doing so would arrange sealing between the battery cells and degassing system so that the battery cells are coupled to the degassing system in a gas-tight manner (see Angerbauer [0017]).
Regarding Claim 15, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Angerbauer et al. teaches wherein the seal is composed of an electrically non-conductive material (rubber seals, see Angerbauer [0017]).
Regarding Claim 16, Schüssler et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Angerbauer et al. teaches wherein the seal has an annular shape (O-rings, see Angerbauer [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further presents the following arguments:
Response to the argument “Wang provides no hint that its passage would be sized such that each flap would contact the angled wall in an open position of that flap.”, the underline highlighted part in second paragraph, page 9 of Amendment and Reply:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is attacking Wang individually while the rejection is based on the combination of the two references Wang and Schüssler. Schüssler teaches all limitations of its passage that each flap would contact the angled wall in an open position of that flap (see mapping for amended claim 1).
Response to the argument “Moreover, if the degassing passage walls of Schüssler and Haug were modified to be sloped. then it is unknown whether the flaps of those devices would contact the sloped upperwall.”, the underline highlighted part in second paragraph, page 9 of Amendment and Reply:
Paragraph 0023 and 0024 of Schüssler teaches that “the length of the flap is greater than the wall distance between the upper and the lower wall so that the flap open-up is supported on an overlying surface of the degassing channel, which the surface is provided by the upper wall”. Changing the shape of degassing passage taught by Schüssler to the shape taught by Wang would hold the statement that flaps contact the upper wall because the length of the flap is greater than the width between the upper and the lower wall as taught by Schüssler. Therefore, the new ground rejection of claim 1 over Schüssler in view of Wang is made (see rejections above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(Jang) US 20240372208 A1: flap design (Fig. 4-12)
(Jang) US 20250105440 A1: sloped upper wall (Fig. 4-6)
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 NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 8:45 AM - 4:45 PM.
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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723