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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant’s argument and the specification figures cited by the applicant have been reviewed. For the reasons below, the rejection of claims 2, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant’s lexicography burden: When an applicant intends to act as his or her own lexicographer and give a claim term a meaning that differs from its ordinary meaning, the specification must clearly and unambiguously redefine that term so as to put one of ordinary skill in the art on notice of the unconventional meaning. See Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The instant specification and figures do not redefine “baffle” as “aperture” The applicant’s argument relies on interpreting the term “baffle” in the claims to include or be equivalent to the apertures labeled 44A in figure 6. The specification, however, does not clearly redefine “baffle” to mean “aperture.” To the contrary, the specification consistently describes apertures and baffles as separate structural features: apertures (44A) are described as openings, while baffles (46) are described as discrete structures positioned to alter flow. Because the specification uses both terms in a manner that distinguishes them, it fails to provide the clear and explicit redefinition required for lexicographic displacement of the ordinary meaning of “baffle.”
Figure 6 does not show baffles “prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment” The applicant asserts that figure 6 shows the baffles “prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment.” Examination of figure 6 shows apertures 44A in the illustrated structure, but it does not unambiguously depict baffles 46 in the specific positional relationship claimed (i.e., baffles existing prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment as distinct structures supported by those apertures). Because the drawing and written description do not clearly identify the apertures as being the baffles or otherwise clearly redefine “baffle” to be an aperture, the specification does not supply the necessary written description support to avoid the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant’s characterization on page 13 that Fuhr and Kusunoki were “combined” in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is incorrect. The prior office action relied on Fuhr and Kusunoki independently to anticipate the respective claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the baffle is arranged in the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment” (as recited in claims 2 and 12) and “a baffle arranged in a flow of the high-temperature gas directed by the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment” (as recited in claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 12 and 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 2 and 12 recite “the baffle is arranged in the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment”. Claim 20 recites “a baffle arranged in a flow of the high-temperature gas directed by the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas prior to the high-temperature gas entering the second compartment”. A review of the specification and drawings, shows baffles 46 arranged in the endcap 48. The endcap 48 is located after the second compartment 36-2. So, it is unclear how a baffle is arranged in a location that it would be configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas from the vent channel 44 prior to the gas entering the second compartment 36-2. Therefore, as long as the prior art has a baffle located in an endcap as described in the specification, it will read on the claims as recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0135975 hereinafter Fuhr in view of DE 102020001540 hereinafter Balke.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Fuhr teaches a motor vehicle (Figs. 1-2, 10) comprising: a power-source configured to generate power-source torque (Fig. 2, 16); and a battery pack (Figs. 2-4, 20) configured to supply electrical energy to the power-source (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]), the battery pack including: a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 7, 24); a battery pack enclosure surrounded by an external environment, wherein the enclosure tray includes a false floor (Fig. 7, 56) and the second compartment is incorporated into the false floor, the battery pack enclosure including: an enclosure tray (Fig. 7, 42) having a first compartment (Fig. 7, 44) configured to house the plurality of battery cells and a second compartment (Fig. 9, 50) configured to collect high-temperature gas emitted by at least one of the plurality of battery cells during a thermal runaway and expel the high-temperature gas to the external environment; and an enclosure cover (Fig. 3, 26) configured to engage the enclosure tray and seal the battery pack enclosure, wherein the first compartment is arranged between the second compartment and the enclosure cover; a temperature-sensitive component (Figs. 3-4, 32) arranged inside the battery pack enclosure between the second compartment and the enclosure cover; and a vent channel (Fig. 10, 52), incorporated into the false floor (Figs. 9-10), fluidly connecting the first compartment to the second compartment and configured to direct the high-temperature gas from the first compartment to the second compartment, thereby diverting the high-temperature gas away from the temperature-sensitive component.
Fuhr does not teach a baffle arranged in a flow of the high-temperature gas directed by the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas.
Balke teaches a battery pack in an electrically driven motor vehicle with at least one vent channel (26) comprising at least one baffle (84) arranged in a flow of the high-temperature gas directed by the vent channel and configured to slow and cool the high-temperature gas (fig. 6a, abstract and page 7, fifth full paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one baffle in the vent channel of Fuhr as taught by Balke in order to entrain and separate particles from the venting gas and significantly cool the venting gas, thereby lowering critical ignition of the gas exiting the ventilation duct (Balke page 7, fifth full paragraph).
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0135975 hereinafter Fuhr in view of US 11,316,230 hereinafter Boecker.
Fuhr as discussed above is incorporated herein. Additionally, Fuhr teaches one or more openings in the chamber housing the battery cells to vent gases using e.g. ductwork, a tube or pipe that is in fluid communication with the chamber (paragraph [0085]).
Fuhr does not teach a baffle and does not provide the specific details of the structure used to vent the gasses from the chamber as recited in claims 1-6, 11-16 and 20.
Boecker teaches a battery pack for an electric motor vehicle comprising vents 704 configured to selectively open and close, a separate end cap (heat shield 800) joined to the housing/compartment which forms a baffle (figs. 7 & 8 and column 16, lines 32-56).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vents and end cap which forms a baffle of Boecker as part of the venting structure of Fuhr in order to allow the pressure inside the battery pack to equalize with atmospheric pressure or to allow gas and active material to exit the battery pack during a thermal runaway event and to direct the exiting gas and active material in a safer direction to prevent damage to people or structures located in its path (Boecker column 16, lines 32-56).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr in view of Boecker as applied to claims 6 & 16 above, and further in view of Balke.
Fuhr as modified by Boecker does not teach a particle screen arranged in the endcap upstream of the ventilation plug and configured to filter debris out of the high-temperature gas.
Balke teaches a battery pack in an electrically driven motor vehicle with at least one vent channel (26) comprising a filter (88) for separating or filtering out the particles of the venting gas which is located upstream of a vent plug (44) (figs. 3a & 6b, page 6, first full paragraph and page 8 third full paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter in Fuhr as modified by Boecker as taught by Balke in order to entrain and separate particles from the venting gas and significantly cool the venting gas, thereby lowering critical ignition of the gas exiting the ventilation duct (Balke page 7, fifth full paragraph). Further it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art see MPEP 2144.04 VI C. The specification does not provide criticality for the specific location of the screen.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr in view of Boecker as applied to claims 6 & 16 above, and further in view of US 20150072184 hereinafter Kusonoki.
Fuhr as modified by Boecker does not teach a particle screen arranged in the endcap upstream of the ventilation plug and configured to filter debris out of the high-temperature gas or the ventilation plug is one of metal and plastic.
Kusunoki teaches a battery pack, wherein the battery pack enclosure additionally includes a particle screen (Fig. 5. 160) arranged in the endcap upstream of the ventilation plug and configured to filter debris out of the high-temperature gas. Kusunoki further teaches wherein the ventilation plug is constructed from one of metal and plastic and is configured to be breached by at least one of increased pressure and temperature when impinged on by the high-temperature gas (Paragraph [0085] "The functional membrane 160 is made from a water resistant, permeable material such as GORE-TEX® or TEMISH®).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particle screen and ventilation plug material of Kusunoki in Fuhr as modified by Boecker with the predictable result of "discharging gas generated in the event of a malfunction out of an outer housing of the energy storage apparatus, and through which foreign matter, such as water, cannot easily enter and water cannot easily flow into the interior of the outer housing" (paragraph [0030] Kusunoki).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT W HODGE whose telephone number is (571)272-2097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Boveja Namrata can be reached at (571) 272-8105. 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.
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights