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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claim 1 and 2 has been amended. Claims 3-12 are as previously presented. Claims 1-12 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimizu (US 2013/0095356).
As to claim 1, Shimizu discloses power supply system (figure 1 #200, battery module) including an electrochemical cell (figure 1 #100, [0026], discussed throughout) and a safety device which can be adapted to an electrochemical cell figure 2-10, the safety device is the parts of the battery module that are not the cells, i.e. the case and the components), the cell (figure 1 #100, [0026], discussed throughout) having a container in which a coil is placed (figure 1 #4, [0027], discussed throughout), said container comprising at least one first wall provided with at least one rupture initiator (figure 1 #14, [0028], discussed throughout), designed to break in the event of a fault so as to expel the gases ([0029], discussed throughout), and a second wall preventing the coil from exiting said container and having mechanical fragilities (figure 1 #8 and/or #7, [0029], discussed throughout), wherein the safety device has: a holding device ensuring an abutment against said second wall of the container so as to hold it in position in the event of thermal runaway and to retain the coil on the inside of said container (figures 2-8 #30 and #70 and #20 and #21, [0033], [0041], discussed throughout), a gas releasing device, arranged to ensure the expulsion of the gases from the electrochemical cell in the event of thermal runaway (figures 2-8 #70 or #60 or #22 or #71 or #72 or #40, as all of these contribute to the release of the gas, [0041], thermal runaway is one of many instants that would be a thermal influence and pressure increase from the battery cell, discussed throughout), wherein the second wall of the electrochemical cell (figure 1 #8 and/or #7, [0029], discussed throughout) is distinct from the first wall of the electrochemical cell (figure 1 #14, [0028], discussed throughout).
As to claim 2, Shimizu discloses wherein the holding device has a frame which is fixed in relation to the electrochemical cell and abutment means fixed to said frame (figures 8 and 9 #30, the holding device is plate #30 and against the cells, the plate can also be considered the frame or the case #21 and #20 could also be considered the frame; discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, Shimizu discloses wherein: the holding device has an abutment plate arranged to ensure an abutment against said second wall of the container (figures 2-9, this can be #30, discussed throughout), and a compression plate fixed to the frame and arranged to compress said abutment plate (figure 2-9 #21, as it is above an gravity would apply pressure; discussed throughout), said abutment plate comprising a first through-hole and said compression plate comprising a second through-hole (figures 2-9, discussed throughout), the gas releasing device has a perforable film arranged between said abutment plate and said compression plate (figure 2-9 #70, #71 and #72, discussed throughout), forming closing off means for the passage created by the first through-hole and by the second through-hole (figures 2-9).
As to claim 8, Shimizu discloses wherein the abutment plate has a recess for receiving a metal foil (figures 1-9, #8 and/or #34, discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, Shimizu discloses wherein said abutment plate has a receiving compartment for an electrochemical cell (figures 1-9 #100, discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, Shimizu discloses wherein the frame has a casing intended to accommodate said electrochemical cell (figures 1-9, discussed throughout).
As to claim 11, Shimizu discloses the use of the safety device as defined in claim 1 for adaptation to an electrochemical cell of cylindrical format (figures 1-9, discussed throughout).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2013/0095336) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomgren (US 2010/0112443).
As to claim 12, Shimizu is silent to wherein the electrochemical cell is of the 18650 or 21700 format. Blomgren discloses a secondary battery (abstract) wherein the batteries are from the 18650 format. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the format from Blomgren within Shimizu as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and as a mere change in shape/size (see MPEP 2143 I and MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art within the conclusion section and the rejection section above is silent to the structural limitations as recited within independent claim 3. This is best seen within instant figures 4A and 4B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Shimizu is silent to the newly added claim limitation the examiner respectfully disagrees as seen within the newly amended rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., limitations of the holding device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicants arguments are directed to the difference between the instant holding device and the holding device of Shimizu. However, the first wall and second wall are part of the cell and the holding device is part of the safety device. While the cell is part of the safety device, the cell comprises (or having as stated in the claim) the first wall and second wall then the claim then states “the safety device comprising” thus going back to the overall device, which includes the holding device. Therefore, Shimizu disclose the instant claimed invention, as cited above within the rejection.
The applicant argues that the first wall and the second wall are different. The examiner has shown that the second wall can be seen in figure 1 #7 and/or #8 and the first wall can also be seen in figure 1 #14. Thus the wall are different and distinct.
The applicant argues the amended claim limitation said container having mechanical fragilities. This is not found as mechanical fragilities refers to the susceptibility of materials and structures of failure under various stress conditions. However, as the claim does not state the temperature, the pressure and other conditions the material is under when the failure will occur. The claim is broad as all material will fail under some different conditions. Thus the examiner would recommend claiming the material or the condition in which the material will fail.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shimizu (US 2020/0099030) and Chan (US 2018/0138478).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights