DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment received on 1/13/2026:
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 16 are amended and Claim 10 is cancelled.
The previous double patenting rejection over US Patent 11,600886 is withdrawn in light of the submitted terminal disclaimer.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the explanation given in the remarks filed 1/13/2026.
The previous prior art rejections are overcome in light of the amendment and remarks filed 1/13/2026.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,600,886 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the grammar of Claim 1 and 16 should be modified to be more easily read. For example, “wherein a structural layer, facing the explosion-proof valve, of the bottom of the case is provided with a weak area, and gas in the battery cell during thermal runaway of any battery cell may be collected via the weak area into the cavity structure and then is discharged” should be corrected to read:
“wherein a structural layer of the bottom case is provided with a weak area, the structural layer facing the explosion-proof valve of each battery cell, and gas in any aforementioned battery cell during thermal runaway of said battery cell may be collected via the weak area into the cavity structure and then is discharged”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
6. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “the space inside the case located on the side of the upper plate facing away from the cavity structure” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis since there is no space previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of Claims 1-9 and 11-20.
Independent Claims 1 and 16 recite a structure for a case of a battery pack where a cavity structure is provided in the bottom of the case, said cavity structure forming a bottom cavity formed from an upper plate and lower plate, vented gas from battery cells is directed to the cavity via a weak area in the upper plate, and a one-way valve is provided to the upper plate to direct gas via an outlet from the one-way valve into the space inside the case located on the side of the upper plate facing away from the cavity structure. As Applicant correctly and convincingly points out in the remarks filed 1/13/2026, previously cited Morioka US PG Pub 2017/0346050 discloses a similar structure to that which is claimed, but there is no one-way valve directing gas from the cavity into a space in the upper portion of the battery pack, e.g. where cells are held, and there is no other prior art available to guide the skilled artisan to make such a modification to Morioka. It’s simply not obvious to direct emitted gas (or other substance) from battery cells, into an adjacent cavity, and THEN direct said gas/substance back into the case where the batteries are held. Therefore, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of the independent Claims 1 and 16, and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of independent Claims 1 and 16. Since Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 depend on Claims 1 and 16, they are allowable for the same reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification is withdrawn and the prior art rejections are overcome in light of arguments and the claim amendments.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights