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 Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “…a pressure balancing mechanism configured to balance pressure inside and outside the housing, the pressure balancing mechanism being configured to guide the emissions to the pressure balancing mechanism through the flow channel and to discharge the emissions to the outside of the housing”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the instant disclosure, a pressure balancing mechanism will be interpreted as any component or structure that communicates between the inside and outside of the housing.
Claim 9 recites “…a guard member configured to protect the separation component”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the instant disclosure, a guard member will be interpreted as any structure in fluid contact with the collection cavity (i.e. wall/seal/housing/terminal).
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi et al. (US 2015/0140369) in view of Takano et al. (US 20200067045).
Regarding claim 1, Itoi teaches a battery housing, comprising:
an electrical cavity, or housing space 50 configured to accommodate a plurality of battery cells 100, wherein at least one battery cell 100 of the plurality of battery cells comprises a pressure relief mechanism 8a, and the pressure relief mechanism 8a is configured to be actuated in response to an internal pressure or a temperature of the at least one battery cell provided with the pressure relief mechanism reaching a threshold so as to relieve the internal pressure (P4.12.48-64; Fig. 1-6.14);
a collection cavity, or exhaust duct 60 configured to collect emissions from the at least one battery cell provided with the pressure relief mechanism in response to the pressure relief mechanism being actuated (P52-53; Fig. 2-6);
a separation component, or flat plate 30 configured to separate the electrical cavity 50 and the collection cavity 60, the electrical cavity 50 and the collection cavity 60 being provided on two sides of the separation component 30, respectively (P50-55; Fig. 2-6);
a partition 40 structure configured to partition the collection cavity 60 into a first cavity 61 and a second cavity 62, wherein the partition structure is provided with an exhaust vent, or through holes 40a, and the exhaust vent 40a is configured to guide the emissions in the first cavity 61 into the second cavity 62 (P53; Fig. 2-6).
Itoi teaches baffles, or projections 40b arranged in the second cavity 62 that can guide the emissions (P105; Fig. 17.19), but is silent in teaching the flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity and configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions; however, Takano, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches an exhaust pathway from a first cavity to a second cavity (P28.51-55; Fig. 5.9).
Takano teaches including flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity and configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions to further contribute to a substantial reduction in the temperature of the gas discharged from a gas outlet (P71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity of Itoi, configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions, to further reduce the temperature of discharged gas, as taught by Takano. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Itoi teaches a pressure balancing mechanism, or outlet 22/66b/68b configured to balance pressure inside and outside the housing, the pressure balancing mechanism 22/66b/68b being configured to guide the emissions to the pressure balancing mechanism through the flow channel and to discharge the emissions to the outside of the housing (P115-123; Fig. 2.6.20-24).
Regarding claim 3, modified Itoi teaches the exhaust vent 40a is provided in a middle of the partition structure 40 of the partition structure (P53-55; Fig. 2.6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Itoi teaches the electrical cavity comprises a first sub-cavity and a second sub-cavity, the first sub-cavity 50 is configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells 100, and the second sub-cavity 62c is provided adjacent to the first sub-cavity 50 (P115-125; Fig. 20-21); the pressure balancing mechanism is provided on an outer wall of the second sub-cavity, and the second sub-cavity is configured to be communicated with the second cavity to guide the emissions to the second sub-cavity through the flow channel to discharge the emissions to the outside of the housing through the pressure balancing mechanism (P54.80.115-123; Fig. 6.20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the second sub-cavity 62c with embodiments comprising both first cavity 61 and second cavity 62 as Itoi teaches that the embodiments do not limit the disclosure and can be variously changed and modified (P124). Thus, using the combination of chambers taught in the prior art does not provide new or unexpected results, and would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it does not change the function of any parts, while providing the exact functionality as taught by Itoi, an exhaust pathway within a module. Furthermore, one would be motivated to use such a configuration in light of design limitations with respect to the placement of the outlet, or discharge of the housing and to further decrease the temperature depending on intended use (i.e. route exhaust at a lower temperature away from users). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Itoi teaches the exhaust vent 40a is a first exhaust vent; the separation component 30 is provided with a second exhaust vent 30a (P52.115-116; Fig. 6.20);
the partition structure 40 is further provided with a third exhaust vent 40a corresponding to the second exhaust vent, wherein in embodiments first cavity is partitioned into plurality of sections comprising holes on each plate (Fig. 5c) and therefore separate cavity of communicating holes are interpreted as the second and third exhaust holes; and when integrated into embodiments (Fig. 20-23) the second sub-cavity 62c is fluidly communicated with the second cavity via the second exhaust vent 30a and the third exhaust vent 40b. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Itoi teaches an inlet 30a of the flow channel is communicated with the exhaust vent 40a (P52-56.115-118) while Takano of modified Itoi teaches the flow channel includes an S-shaped flow channel (P71; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, modified Itoi teaches a battery, comprising: a plurality of battery cells 100, wherein at least one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells comprises a pressure relief mechanism, and the pressure relief mechanism is configured to be actuated in response to an internal pressure or a temperature of the at least one battery cell provided with the pressure relief mechanism reaching a threshold so as to relieve the internal pressure (P4.47-50); and the housing according to claim 1; wherein the plurality of battery cells are accommodated in the housing (P50-51; Fig. 2-23).
Regarding claim 12, modified Itoi teaches an electrical apparatus, comprising the battery according to claim 11, wherein the battery is configured to provide electric energy (P44.124-125).
Regarding claim 13, Itoi teaches a method for manufacturing a battery housing, comprising: providing a plurality of battery cells 100, wherein at least one battery cell 100 of the plurality of battery cells comprises a pressure relief mechanism 8a, and the pressure relief mechanism 8a is configured to be actuated in response to an internal pressure or a temperature of the at least one battery cell provided with the pressure relief mechanism reaching a threshold so as to relieve the internal pressure (P4.12.48-64; Fig. 1-6.14);
providing a housing; the housing comprising: an electrical cavity, or housing space 50 configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells 100 (P4.12.48-64; Fig. 1-6.14); a collection cavity, or exhaust duct 60 configured to collect emissions from the at least one battery cell provided with the pressure relief mechanism in response to the pressure relief mechanism being actuated (P52-53; Fig. 2-6); a separation component, or flat plate 30 configured to separate the electrical cavity 50 and the collection cavity 60, the electrical cavity 50 and the collection cavity 60 being provided on two sides of the separation component 30, respectively (P50-55; Fig. 2-6); a partition 40 structure configured to partition the collection cavity 60 into a first cavity 61 and a second cavity 62, wherein the partition structure is provided with an exhaust vent, or through holes 40a, and the exhaust vent 40a is configured to guide the emissions in the first cavity 61 into the second cavity 62 (P53; Fig. 2-6).
Itoi teaches baffles, or projections 40b arranged in the second cavity 62 that can guide the emissions (P105; Fig. 17.19), but is silent in teaching the flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity and configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions; however, Takano, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches an exhaust pathway from a first cavity to a second cavity (P28.51-55; Fig. 5.9).
Takano teaches including flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity and configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions to further contribute to a substantial reduction in the temperature of the gas discharged from a gas outlet (P71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include flow channel baffles arranged in the second cavity of Itoi, configured to form a flow channel for guiding the emissions, to further reduce the temperature of discharged gas, as taught by Takano. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Itoi in view of Takano as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al (US20140308550A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Itoi is silent in teaching an oxidant or a cooling material is provided in the collection cavity 60; however, Shimizu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a collection cavity for gases of cells (P30-40; Fig. 10).
Shimizu teaches using including a cooling material in the collection cavity, or exhaust passage to prevent thermal runaway and improve safety (P31-32.74-81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a cooling material in the collection cavity of modified Itoi, as taught by Shimizu to help prevent thermal runaway. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 8, modified Itoi in view of Shimizu teaches the cooling material is provided on a surface of the partition structure (P32.74-81; Fig. 6-10)
Regarding claim 9, modified Itoi teaches a guard member, or side walls 41 configured to protect the separation component, by allowing further control of the volume and space, wherein the guard member and the separation component form a portion of the collection cavity (P66-70; Fig. 5c), wherein in light of Shimizu of modified Itoi, the cooling material is provided on a surface on the guard member facing the separation component, or the surfaces of the chamber can comprise a cooling agent (P75-83).
Regarding claim 10, modified Itoi teaches a surface of the partition structure 40 facing the guard member 41 has a recessed portion, or forms subspaces 63 of smaller volume and the recessed portion is configured to accommodate the oxidant or the cooling material, or comprises oxygen within the chamber (P67-69; Fig. 5c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752