DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on February 9, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 – 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IDS reference Hermann et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2011/0174556 A1) in view of Wynn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,394,079 B2) and Kim et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0272488 A1) for the reasons of record as set forth in Paragraph No. 6 of the Office Action mailed on November 7, 2025.
Regarding claims 13 – 26, these limitations are met for the reasons previously set forth.
Regarding claim 28, Hermann et al. illustrates a discharge opening (e.g. Figure 7, element 703 -gas discharge port) that is not positioned opposite the openings in the inner wall, per se. Furthermore, as noted in Wynn et al., having channels to direct the flow of discharge from the interior of the battery pack to an exterior, desired discharge location is clearly recognized and known by a skilled artisan. Therefore, the exact position of the discharge opening in the outer wall would have been a matter of routine optimization for a skilled artisan to have it be in a position to allow discharge to a desired outer location to minimize potential risk to bystanders, etc., whether directly opposite the openings in the inner wall or directed to such a discharge via channels, etc. This would have been within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 27 requires the weak-point to be a single opening aligned with the openings in the casing double-walled structure. While the prior art recognizes weak points in the envelopes and the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case for why alignment of the weak points to the plurality of openings in Hermann et al.’s casing would have been obvious, the “picking and choosing” to use a _single_ opening as the weak point and to align this with the Hermann et al. casing openings (of which there are a plurality) tilts the scale to patentability. To put it another way, the Examiner deems that there is insufficient specificity to teach or render obvious the invention of claim 27 in view of the teaching in the prior art of plural openings, fully enclosed battery modules (with weak points/rupture valves, etc., but _not_ openings), etc.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) – Hermann et al. in view of various references
Applicant(s) argue(s) that Paragraphs 0027 and 0028 of Hermann et al. teach away from the claimed invention (“Specifically, Hermann describes a storage device without any weak points. Indeed, one of the key benefits of the storage device disclosed in Hermann is that it works with a battery pack enclosure that does not have any weak points. See, for example, paragraph [0027], which explains that a battery pack enclosure that does not have weak points can fail at any point. Paragraph [0028] explains that the invention of Hermann is designed to overcome the problems of the prior art, and thus the storage device disclosed therein must be able to handle failure at any point of the battery enclosure. Said another way, it can be understood from paragraphs [0027] and [0028], that the invention described in Hermann relates to an energy storage device comprising an assembly of electrochemical cells without a specific weak point.”). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 0027 of Hermann et al. clearly teach that a battery module structure WITHOUT a weak point is a greater risk to bystanders because the uncertainty where the battery will fail (
PNG
media_image1.png
260
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). And, in fact, Paragraph 0028 states this controlled release as their primary purpose (
PNG
media_image2.png
208
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
). As such, the Examiner does not find Applicants’ argument that Hermann et al. desires a NON-WEAK POINT structure convincing … if anything, Hermann et al. clearly recognizes the advantages of using weak points to control potential discharge and pressure release due to battery failure.
Applicants then argue that Hermann et al. fails to disclose that the weak points in the envelope are positioned opposite the openings in their casing (pages 6 – 7 of response). The Examiner completely agrees.
This is the entire reason why the rejection is a 103(a) rejection and not an anticipatory 102-type rejection. It is explicitly stated on the record that Hermann et al. doesn’t teach this. Applicant(s) are reminded that “the test for obviousness is not whether features of the secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the primary reference’s structure, nor whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, rather the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex parte Martin 215 USPQ 543, 544 (PO BdPatApp 1981). In the instant case, the secondary references provide clear teaching that having ENVELOPES with weak points around the battery modules is known in the art and a skilled artisan would have been well within their inventive knowledge to align the weak points of the envelopes to the openings in the casing, GIVEN THAT THE OPENINGS IN THE CASING ARE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING DISCHARGE DUE TO THERMAL EVENT OR PRESSURE FAILURE OF A BATTERY MODULE. As such, the Examiner does not find this argument convincing (i.e. why on earth would they _not_ want to align the weak point, which is where the discharge should occur per the prior art teachings, with the openings in the casing, ** which is where Hermann et al. wants the discharge gas, etc. to go! **).
Applicants next attack Wynn et al. individually that Wynn “does not disclose or suggest any specific opening in the battery modules 200 to line up with the interior perforations/inlets to the cavity” (page 7 of response). The Examiner acknowledged this is the prior office action, but maintains that Wynn et al. clearly teach that a skilled artisan knows how to direct the flow of vented gas/materials from a battery (e.g. see statements like:
PNG
media_image3.png
246
930
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in column 1;
PNG
media_image4.png
400
956
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in column 2; and
PNG
media_image5.png
800
964
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in column 5). All of these provide clear evidence that Wynn et al. recognizes that a skilled artisan knows how to direct the flow of discharge gases, which is why the Examiner maintains (as set forth in the rejection of record) that aligning the weak spots of the envelope with the opening for receiving the discharge gas/material would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The additional arguments towards Hermann et al. on pages 7 and 8 are not found convincing because they are attacking the individual reference without addressing the combination with the other art, which is what is relied upon to teach the claimed limitations. Applicant(s) are reminded that “the test for obviousness is not whether features of the secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the primary reference’s structure, nor whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, rather the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex parte Martin 215 USPQ 543, 544 (PO BdPatApp 1981). In the instant case, it is the combined teachings which are relied upon to render obvious the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (new claims 27 and 28 only). 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 KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
March 27, 2026