DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 without traverse of Species (ii) (Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-20) in the reply filed on December 17th, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (i) and (iii)-(iv) there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on March 1st, 2023 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Zhang US PG Publication 2022/0407177 (“Zhang”)
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “to establish” is seen in line 2 of Claim 6 and line 2 of Claim 7. It has been held that the recitation that an element is present “to establish” the ability to perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to do so. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Claim 13, line 4 recites the limitation “the enclose assembly.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis), “the enclosure assembly.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang US PG Publication 2022/0407177.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a [traction] battery pack 1 ([0006], [0030], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a housing 9 (enclosure assembly) ([0030]);
a battery module (battery cell) housed within the enclosure assembly 9 ([0030]); and
a filter apparatus 4 (filter) arranged to filter a constituent element of a gaseous mixture vented by the battery cell during a thermal runaway event ([0030]),
wherein the filter 4 is integrated as part of an exhaust vent pipe 3 (which meets the claim limitation of a vent valve, a vent pipe, a pressure equalization device, or an array housing of the traction battery pack, or the filter is integrated as part of a separate structure from the traction battery pack) ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 1, and Zhang discloses wherein the filter 4 is further configured to block a flow of a particulate (such as copper foils and plastic pieces) vented from the battery cell during the battery thermal runaway event through an explosion-proof valve 2 ([0030]-[0031], [0040]).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 1, and Zhang discloses wherein the filter 4 is disposed within an internal passageway of the vent pipe 3 (Fig. 3A, [0030], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 5, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 includes a plurality of filter plate units (deflectors) (Fig. 3A, [0030]-[0031]).
Zhang teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 5, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 is attached to a second vent pipe 3 (Fig. 3A, 3C – wherein there is a vent pipe 3 disposed at each end of the apparatus).
Zhang teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 1.
Regarding the limitation “the structure is a frame member of an underbody of an electrified vehicle,” it is noted that such limitation is directed to an alternative option of parent Claim 1 and, thus, not positively required by the claim. Claim 1 recites (with emphasis), “or the filter is integrated as part of a structure separate from the traction battery pack.” Accordingly, the limitation “the structure” is reasonably considered to be an optional, alternative limitation that depends on the selection of the separate structure as recited in Claim 1, which, in this case, is unselected because Zhang discloses wherein the filter is integrated as part of a vent pipe, as established in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang discloses a [traction] battery pack 1 ([0006], [0030], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a housing 9 (enclosure assembly) establishing an interior area ([0030]);
a battery [array] housed within the interior area of the enclosure assembly 9 ([0030]);
an exhaust vent pipe 3 attached to a wall of the enclosure assembly 9 (Figs. 3A and 3C, [0030]-[0031]); and
a filter apparatus 4 (filter) positioned within the vent pipe 3 and configured to filter a constituent element of a gaseous mixture vented from a battery module (cell) of the battery array during a thermal runaway event ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 is fluidly connected (able to withstand water transfer) to a vent valve 2 disposed within the wall of the enclosure assembly (Fig. 3A, [0030], [0044]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 14, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent valve 2 includes a waterproof breathable film 17 (second filter) ([0044]).
Zhang teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the filter 4 is disposed within an internal passageway of the vent pipe 3 (Fig. 3A, [0030], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 includes a plurality of filter plate units (deflectors) (Fig. 3A, [0030]-[0031]).
Zhang teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 is attached to a second vent pipe 3 (Fig. 3A, 3C – wherein there is a vent pipe 3 disposed at each end of the apparatus).
Zhang teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the vent pipe 3 is completely outside of the interior area (Figs. 3A and 3C).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 13, and Zhang discloses wherein the battery pack 1 comprises a second filter plate 14 integrated as part of an array housing of the battery array (Fig. 3C, [0043]-[0044]).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang US PG Publication 2022/0407177.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 1.
Zhang discloses wherein the filter 4 includes a frame (as defined by the frame 15 at the intersection of pipe 3 and filter 4) (Fig. 2, [0040]).
While Zhang does not explicitly disclose a filtering catalyst applied to the frame, Zhang does teach the use of a particulate filter layer to filter combustion gas as a common practice in the art to act as a neutralizer or absorbent in conjunction with a pipe and valve ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the traction battery pack of Zhang to include a filtering catalyst, such as a particulate filter layer to filter combustion gas, in order to act as a neutralizer or absorbent, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang teaches the instantly claimed traction battery pack according to Claim 11, and Zhang discloses wherein the frame includes a waterproof breathable film 17 (mesh structure)([0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729