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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 4 are amended, claims 12-18 are cancelled, and claims 19-27 are new, submitted on 2/17/2026. Claims 1-11 and 19-27 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, in Ln5-6 recites the limitation “to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly”. {Examiner notes: “an area” is not defined in the claim nor in the specification. For examination purposes, “an area” in the claim is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), to mean a particular extent of space or surface.}
Claim 4, in Ln3 recites the limitation “extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly”. {Examiner notes: There are normally at least two pairs of sides for the enclosure assembly and the claim does not define extending horizontally along which side or which pair of sides of the enclosure assembly. Claims must be provided with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, however, limitations from the specification must not be read into the claims [MPEP 2111]. While the instant disclosure FIG. 1 shows horizontal direction pointing to the rear end of the vehicle, the claim limitation “extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly” is interpreted under its BRI, thus would be considered as read on when extending along any side or any pair of sides of the enclosure assembly would suffice.}
Claim 5, in Ln2 recites “a driver side” is a side of the vehicle where the steering wheel is located and “a passenger side” is the opposite lateral side of the vehicle according to standard automotive industry usage as Applicant presented on P7 of the Remarks of 2/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 19-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US20250141031 A1-Priority to 10/20/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a traction battery pack (electrical vehicle battery 40 [0082-0083] and FIG. 1) venting system comprising: an enclosure assembly (battery enclosure 41, [0087] and FIG. 3) that provides an interior area (FIGs. 3 and 9); at least one rail assembly (support bars 30, [0069] and FIGs. 3, 5, 8 and 10); and a shear plate (bottom plate 11, [0044] and FIG. 3) beneath the enclosure assembly (FIGs. 3, 5, 8 and 10). Wu further discloses the support bars 30 are disposed on the inner surface of the bottom plate, forming an exhaust chamber between the lower ends of the battery cells and the inner surface of the bottom plate, and it can be ensured that the high-temperature and high-pressure gas discharged from the battery cells is smoothly discharged outwardly through the first pressure relief mechanism 20 ([0022] and FIGs. 5 and 8), which anticipates the claimed “the at least one rail assembly configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly” because the high-temperature and high-pressure gas corresponds to the vent byproducts in the claim; and the FIGs. 5 and 8 show an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the at least one rail assembly is configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly directly to the area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly (FIGs. 4 and 8) via through holes 31/32.
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses the at least one rail assembly is configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to the area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly without the vent byproducts passing through an ambient area outside a vehicle (FIGs. 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses the area is a space defined between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly (FIGs 4-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the at least one rail assembly includes a rail vent chamber having a primary portion extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses a battery pack (electrical vehicle battery 40 [0082-0083]) FIG. 1) venting system (FIG. 3) comprising: an enclosure assembly (battery enclosure 41, [0087]) that provides an interior area (FIGs. 3 and 9); at least one rail assembly (support bars 30, [0069] and FIGs. 3, 5, 8 and 10); and a shear plate (bottom plate 11, [0044] and FIG. 3) beneath the enclosure assembly (FIGs. 3, 5, 8 and 10). Wu further discloses the support bars 30 are disposed on the inner surface of the bottom plate, forming an exhaust chamber between the lower ends of the battery cells and the inner surface of the bottom plate, and it can be ensured that the high-temperature and high-pressure gas discharged from the battery cells is smoothly discharged outwardly through the first pressure relief mechanism 20 ([0022] and FIGs. 5 and 8), which anticipates the claimed “the at least one rail assembly configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to a space defined between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly” because the high-temperature and high-pressure gas corresponds to the vent byproducts in the claim; and the FIGs. 5 and 8 show a space defined between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly.
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses the battery pack is within an electrified vehicle ([0082]).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the space comprises a plurality of vent chambers (first groove 111, [0099] and FIG. 7A) extending laterally beneath the enclosure assembly (first groove 111 at the bottom plate, [0099]) from a driver side to a passenger side of the enclosure assembly (extending up-down direction, FIG. 7A in view of FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses the shear plate includes a plurality of openings (pressure relieve mechanism 20 and ports 21, [0098] and FIG. 8) configured to discharge the vent byproducts downward from the space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (US20230070257 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kellner discloses a traction battery pack venting system (traction battery module venting unit, Abstract) comprising: an enclosure assembly (module housing 3, [0034]) that provides an interior area (interior of the case 22, [0042] and FIGs 2 and 4); at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, [0034] and FIGs. 1-4); and a shear plate (base plate 25, [0044]) beneath the enclosure assembly(FIG. 4). Kellner further discloses the at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, [0041]) comprises an auxiliary channel 15 of a venting unit 9 ([0041] and FIG. 2) configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to a venting chamber 13 ([0041] and FIGs. 2-4) and preferably to an environment ([0037]). However, Kellner does not explicitly disclose “to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly”.
Since Kellner discloses communicating vent byproduct through the venting chamber 13 and preferably to an environment ([0037]) and the venting chamber 13 has venting outlet adjacent to the shear plate (base plate 25) (FIG. 4), a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the vent byproduct gases coming out of the outlet of 13 would naturally infuse into an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly because the gap area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly is not sealed, thus the gap area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly is considered as an accessible area for at least gas phase venting byproduct from the outlet of the venting chamber 13.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses the at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, FIGs. 1-2) is laterally outboard the enclosure assembly (FIGs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses a vehicle frame member (longitudinal support 4, [0034]), the vehicle frame member outboard the at least one rail assembly (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner discloses further comprising at least one valve ([0047]) between the vent opening 10 and he inflow opening 17 as a check valve ([0047]), arriving at the claimed “in the enclosure assembly, the at least one valve configured to communicate vent byproducts from an interior of the enclosure assembly to the rail assembly”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner discloses further comprising a plurality of cell stacks (battery modules 2, [0032] and FIG. 1) housed within the interior area (FIGs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kellner discloses the at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7) is disposed laterally outboard the enclosure assembly (module housing 3, [0034] FIGs. 1-2) and inboard of a vehicle frame member (longitudinal support 4, [0034] and FIGs. 1-2).
8. Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (US20230070257 A1), in view of Heo (WO2024117478 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Kellner discloses a traction battery pack venting system (traction battery module venting unit, Abstract) comprising: an enclosure assembly (module housing 3, [0034]) that provides an interior area (interior of the case 22, [0042] and FIGs 2 and 4); at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, [0034] and FIGs. 1-4); and a shear plate (base plate 25, [0044]) beneath the enclosure (FIG. 4); the at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, [0041]) comprises an auxiliary channel 15 of a venting unit 9 ([0041] and FIG. 2) configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to a venting chamber 13 ([0041] and FIGs. 2-4); and further discloses the shear plate (base plate 25) covering the traction battery system with respect to a driving surface, and is accommodated by the venting chamber 13 via a joining element 24 ([0044]).
While Kellner discloses the need of discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases ([0011]); and the vent byproduct vents to the venting chamber 13 which appears to be above the shear plate and beside the enclosure assembly (FIG. 4), Kellner does not explicitly disclose the venting chamber 13 represents an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly.
Heo teaches similar needs to quickly discharge the venting gas to the outside; and provides a method to delay flame spread to surrounding modules while simultaneously quickly discharging internal venting gas ([0009]). Heo further teaches the venting frame (200) may have a double structure including a first venting layer (210) arranged adjacent to the module frame (400) and a second venting layer (220) adjacent to the first venting layer (210) and on the outside of the first venting layer (210) ([0044] and FIG. 3); and by quickly discharging the venting gas or flame to the second venting layer (220) it is possible to prevent the risk of explosion from increasing due to accumulation inside the module frame (400) ([0047]). Heo’s second venting layer (220) is positioned beneath the module frame (400) (FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further utilize the venting area beneath the module frame as taught by Heo, through expanding the venting chamber 13 of Kellner, ie., to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly of Kellner; and via directing the vent byproduct from the auxiliary channel 15 of Kellner downward first followed by left-turn 90 degree to the expanded area underneath the enclosure assembly, similar to the transition portion from 210 to 220 (going downward and turn left) as shown in Heo’s FIG. 3, thus arriving at the claimed “to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases, as desired by Kellner.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses the at least one rail assembly (housing cover 7, FIGs. 1-2) is laterally outboard the enclosure assembly (FIGs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses a vehicle frame member (longitudinal support 4, [0034]), the vehicle frame member outboard the at least one rail assembly (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4, in light of the BRI above, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner has at least one rail assembly includes a rail vent chamber (an auxiliary channel 15, [0041] and FIG. 2) that communicates the vent byproducts ([0041] and FIG. 2), the rail vent chamber including a primary portion of the rail vent chamber (auxiliary channel 15) configured facing toward the vent chamber 13 and the inflow opening 17 ([0042]) with an outlet portion (opening 16, [0041] and FIG. 2) to communicate the vent byproducts vertically downward to one of a plurality of shear plate venting chambers (modified vent chamber 13, FIG. 2).
Further, since FIG. 2 is a section view from II-II along a Y-Z body axis plane with respect to one battery module 2 of FIG. 1 ([0029]), and there are 6 battery modules 2 stacked along the rail vent chamber (FIG. 1), a skilled artisan would reasonable envisage there are at least 6 outlet portions (opening 16, [0041] and FIG. 2), one for each of the 6 battery module 2 as a plurality of replicates of opening 16 as shown in FIG. 2, thus arriving at the claimed “a plurality of outlet portions, each outlet portion configured to communicate the vent byproducts vertically downward to one of a plurality of shear plate venting chambers”.
Modified Kellner seems showing the auxiliary channel 15 extends into the paper surface of FIG. 2 alongside the enclosure assembly, not fully shown in the section view of FIG. 2, thus modified Kellner does not explicitly disclose the primary portion (auxiliary channel 15, FIG. 2) extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly.
Heo further teaches three primary portions extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly (three arrow venting passages, FIG. 4) and at least one outlet portion (first outlet 212, [0046] and FIG. 4) that communicates the vent byproducts vertically downward to one of a plurality of shear plate venting chambers (220, FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary portion of the rail vent chamber (auxiliary channel 15, [0041] and FIG. 2) extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly as taught by the three arrow venting passages shown in Heo’s FIG. 4; and with at least one outlet portion that communicates the vent byproducts vertically downward to one of a plurality of shear plate venting chambers as taught by FIGs. 3-4 of Heo, thus arriving at the claim limitation “the primary portion extending horizontally alongside the enclosure assembly” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of in achieving discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases, as desired by Kellner.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses the shear plate vent chambers (vent chamber 13, FIG. 2) extend beneath the enclosure assembly along the battery stacking direction as a first design example ([0028] and FIG. 1); and the battery module 2 are accommodated in series transverse to a direction of travel F between the longitudinal supports 4, 5 ([0032]), which means the length direction of the battery module 2 is extending from a driver side to a passenger side, and the stacking direction of the battery module 2 is along the direction of travel F (FIGs. 1-2).
The shear plate venting chamber corresponds to modified vent chamber 13 of modified Kellner which has been expanded to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly (Kellner: FIG. 4) taught by Heo’ s FIG. 3, as set forth in claim 1. As shown in FIG. 4 of Kellner, the shear plate venting chamber (modified vent chamber 13) has been expanded towards left to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly, extending along the length direction of the battery module 2, thus arriving at the claimed “the shear plate vent chambers extend beneath the enclosure assembly from a driver side of the enclosure assembly to a passenger side of the enclosure assembly”.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner discloses further comprising at least one valve ([0047]) between the vent opening 10 and he inflow opening 17 as a check valve ([0047]), arriving at the claimed “in the enclosure assembly, the at least one valve configured to communicate vent byproducts from an interior of the enclosure assembly to the rail assembly”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner further discloses further comprising a plurality of cell stacks (battery modules 2, [0032] and FIG. 1) housed within the interior area (FIGs. 1-2).
9. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (US20230070257 A1), in view of Heo (WO2024117478 A1, see machine translation for citation), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Wu (US20250141031 A1-Priority to 10/20/2022).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Kellner further discloses the need of discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases ([0011]); and modified Kellner’s shear plate vent chambers (vent chamber 13) is presented as a distinctly enclosed area between the shear plate and a floor of the enclosure assembly, modified Kellner does not explicitly disclose the shear plate vent chambers are provided by the shear plate and a floor of the enclosure assembly.
Wu, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches with a first pressure relieve mechanisms 20 a high-temperature and high-pressure gas generated when battery cells in the enclosure body 10 are out of control can be released out from the enclosure body 10 through the first pressure relieve mechanism 20, so that the safety of the battery 40 in use is improved ([0092]); the enclosure body 10 has a plurality of side walls enclosing an accommodating space for accommodating the battery cell 42 ([0091]) sitting on the support bar 30 located in the accommodating space and first protrusions 112 maintain a certain exhaust distance between the battery cells 42 and the first pressure relieve mechanism 20 and ensure smooth discharge of the high-temperature and high-pressure gas outwardly through the first relief mechanism 20 ([0111] and FIGs. 4, 5, 8, and 10); and the plurality of side walls of the enclosure body 10 may further include a bottom plate 11 (FIG. 4) which corresponds to the shear plate in the claim. Further the second pressure relieve mechanism 422 is used for releasing the internal pressure of the battery cell 42 ([0128]) and the first pressure relief mechanism 20 may be located at on the shear plate (bottom plate 11) ([0132] and FIG. 10), which teaches a venting chamber formed between the protrusion 112 of the shear plate (bottom plate 11) and a floor of the enclosure assembly (the plurality of support bars 30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shear plate vent chamber 13 of modified Kellner by simply using the shear plate and a floor of the enclosure assembly, as taught by Wu, thus arriving at the claimed “the shear plate vent chambers are provided by the shear plate and a floor of the enclosure assembly”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases, as desired by Kellner.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Heo further teaches a zigzagged venting path formed by parallel bulkhead (223) in the second venting layer 220 (FIG. 5), Modified Kellner does not explicitly disclose the shear plate vent chambers comprise at least three shear plate vent chambers (claim 7). Further, modified Kellner has one big exhaust port (222) on the shear plate, instead of a plurality of openings that communicate vent byproducts from the shear plate venting chambers (claim 8).
Wu further teaches that first protrusions 112 are located between two adjacent support bars 30 ([0112] and may be formed simultaneously on the bottom plate 11 as sheet metals ([0101]). Even though not explicitly shown in FIG 4, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect since there are at least three intervals between two adjacent supporting bars 30 in FIG. 4, it is reasonable to fit in with at least three first protrusions 112. Since the gap between the 112 and the 30 forms literally a shear plate venting chamber in modified Kellner in view of Wu’s FIG. 8, modified Kellner in view of Wu should comprise at least three shear plate vent chambers, thus arriving at the claim 7.
Further, Wu teaches the first pressure relief mechanism 20 may be located on the shear plate (bottom plate 11) ([0132]), and there are a plurality of first pressure relief mechanism 20 in each of the plurality of first protrusions as foregoing (FIGs. 5 and 10), which translates to there are a plurality of openings that communicate vent by product from the shear plate venting chambers, thus arriving at the claim 8.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shear plate of modified Kellner with at least three shear plate vent chambers formed by adding a plurality of protrusions on the shear plate of modified Kellner in the same fashion of protrusions 112 with opening 20 as taught by Wu, thus arriving at the claimed “at least three shear plate vent chambers” (claim 7); and “the shear plate includes a plurality of openings that communicate vent byproducts from the shear plate venting chambers” (claim 8), without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases, as desired by Kellner.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kellner discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kellner [(Heo, 222 FIGs. 3 and 5) and (Wu 20/21 [0067] and FIG. 8)] has taught the openings open downward .
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejection to claim 1 over Kellner (Remarks P5-6)
The Applicant argues that Kellner fails to teach any “rail assembly configured to communicate vent byproducts received from within the enclosure assembly to an area between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly” by pointing out that vent chamber 13 of Kellner.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the “at least one rail assembly” in the claim is mapped as (housing cover 7, [0034] and FIGs. 1-4) of Kellner, in the non-final Office action mailed 11/26/2025, not corresponding to the vent chamber 13 as Applicant argued. Thus, this argument is moot due to not being responsive to the non-final Office action.
Examiner further notes “an area” is not defined in the claim nor in the specification. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as set forth in the claim interpretation section, “an area” means a particular extent of space or surface. FIG. 4 of Kellner appears to show some space or at least surfaces between the shear plate 25 and the enclosure assembly 3 being accessible by the vent product discharged from the enclosure assembly 3 via the rail assembly (housing cover 7). Thus this argument is not found persuasive, either.
Regarding 103 rejection to claim 1 over Kellner in view of Heo (Remarks P6-8)
The Applicant argues that Heo allegedly discloses this feature does not make it obvious to modify Kellner to arrive at the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kellner desires to discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner such that other intact batteries are not damaged by the hot gases ([0011]); and Heo has similar needs to quickly discharge the venting gas to the outside to delay flame spread to surrounding modules while simultaneously quickly discharging internal venting gas ([0009]), a skilled artisan would have motivation to combine the transition portion from 210 to 220 (going downward and turn left) as in Heo’s FIG. 3 through expanding the venting chamber 13 to an area underneath the enclosure assembly, such as between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly of Kellner, because this modification would make discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner (within a specified area like from 210 to 220 in Heo’s FIG. 3), such that other intact batteries are separate from thus not damaged by the hot gases which are guided to a specified area. Since it is a design choice taught by Heo that can quickly discharge venting gas initially generated when an event such as thermal runaway occurs inside a battery module, while simultaneously suppressing or delaying external discharge of flames, etc. ([0010]). Further in considering both easiness of assembly and benefits of space saving, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the venting chamber 13 with such an expansion area that is located between the shear plate and the enclosure assembly.
Regarding 103 rejection to claim 4 over Kellner in view of Heo (Remarks P7)
The amendment to claim 4 has been acknowledged and fully considered.
However, as set forth in the claim 4 rejection in this Office Action, Kellner FIG. 2 is a section view from II-II along a Y-Z body axis plane with respect to one battery module 2 of FIG. 1 ([0029]). Since there are 6 battery modules 2 stacked along the rail vent chamber (FIG. 1), a skilled artisan would reasonable envisage there are at least 6 outlet portions (opening 16, [0041] and FIG. 2), one for each of the 6 battery module 2 as a plurality of replicates of opening 16 as shown in FIG. 2, thus arriving at the claimed “a plurality of outlet portions, each outlet portion configured to communicate the vent byproducts vertically downward to one of a plurality of shear plate venting chambers. See claim 4 rejection in detail for the rest unmodified limitations.
Regarding 103 rejection to claim 5 over Kellner in view of Heo (Remarks P7)
The Applicant states that a passenger side in the claim is the lateral side of the vehicle opposite to a driver side according to standard automotive industry usage.
The Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s statement regarding the narrower interpretation of “a passenger side” based on standard industry usage. An updated rejection to claim 5 is raised responding to the foregoing narrower interpretation of the term “a passenger side” in the claim.
Regarding 103 rejection to claims 6-9 over Kellner in view of Heo, further in view of Wu (Remarks P8)
The Applicant argues against claims 6-9 being rejected as obvious over Kellner in view of Heo by stating no rationally based reason would lead the skilled person to make the proposed modification, and that a modification could be made does not mean that a modification would be made.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argument seems a mere statement without offering much supporting evidence to look at; and is not responsive to the actual Office action mailed 11/26/2025 because claims 6-9 were rejected over Kellner in view of Heo, further in view of Wu. Thus, this argument is moot.
The Examiner further notes Kellner, Heo and Wu are references in the same field of endeavor and trying to solve similar gas venting/pressure relief problems associated with a battery module enclosure assembly. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Kellner with the teaching offered in Heo and Wu in order to better serve the needs of discharging thermal event gases in a controlled manner, as desired by Kellner.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/26/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights