DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 17-33 are pending for consideration following applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 11/27/2023.
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 .
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 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.
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 17, 18, 20, 21, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsura (US Patent 10,439,184) in view of Sasaki (WO 2020/138254; cited with machine translation) and further in view of Heim (US Patent Application 2013/0032219).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsura discloses an emergency degassing device, comprising: a housing (lid member 13 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) defining an interior (interior facing electrode body 50 as shown in Figure 2) and an exterior (exterior facing away from the electrode body 50 as shown in Figure 2), the housing 13 including at least one gas passage opening (gas passage opening formed at safety valve 13j; i.e. the breakable thin layer 13j covers the gas passage opening in the same manner in which applicant’s device forms a gas passage opening which is closed by a membrane) communicating the interior and the exterior (communication occurs after the layer 13j is broken in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), and the housing including at least one air passage 13n communicating the interior and the exterior (as shown in Figure 3); a gas-tight membrane 13j closing off the gas passage opening (as described above); a gas-permeable device 68 covering the air passage 13n to provide a venting element to allow air to vent through the air passage (as shown in Figure 3).
Matsura does not disclose the gas-permeable device is a membrane.
Sasaki teaches a venting device for a battery (abstract) and further teaches a gas-permeable device 118 is a membrane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura such that the gas-permeable device is a membrane as taught by Sasaki for the purpose of utilizing an alternative structure known in the art to be suitable for separating gas from liquid.
Matsura further does not disclose a cutting element supported from the housing at a distance from the gas-tight membrane, the cutting element configured such that upon a predetermined deformation of the gas-tight membrane the cutting element cuts the gas-tight membrane at least at one point to create a flow connection between the interior and the exterior through the gas passage opening.
Heim teaches a device for venting a battery compartment and further teaches a cutting element 166 supported from a housing 124 at a distance from a membrane 134, the cutting element 166 configured such that upon a predetermined deformation of the membrane 134 (i.e. a deformation of the membrane by the predetermined spacing “d”; para. 0100, 0113) the cutting element 166 cuts the membrane 134 at least at one point to create a flow connection between an interior and an exterior through a gas passage opening 128.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura such that the housing includes a cutting element to cut the membrane as taught by Heim for the purpose of providing a structure which ensures the membrane is ruptured (as desired by Matsura).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsura in view of Heim is seen as further disclosing the housing (13 of Matsura) includes a holder (including a central region to support the cutting element as taught by Heim at region 162) supporting the cutting element (cutting element as taught by Heim at 166), and the housing includes an attachment surface (as disclosed by Matsura; the housing 13 includes an attachment surface at the location where 13 abuts 11 as shown in Figure 2), the holder and the attachment surface being integrally interconnected (these elements are necessarily rigidly connected as the holder as taught by Heim must be positioned over the membrane 13j of Matsura; it is noted that a rigid connection is readable as “integrally interconnected” as claimed); and wherein the gas-tight membrane 13j is directly or indirectly connected to the attachment surface in a sealed manner (these elements are at least indirectly connected in a sealed manner as shown by Matsura in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsura in view of Heim is seen as further disclosing the housing includes a spacer (carrier element 114 as taught by Heim as part of the cutting element provides a spacer) integrally formed between the holder (including a central region to support the cutting element as taught by Heim at region 162) and the attachment surface (attachment surface at the outer periphery of housing 13 of Matsura; the spacer is rigidly formed between the holder and the outer periphery of the housing in the manner taught by Heim and such a rigid connection is readable on the recited “integrally formed”) and defining a distance between the holder and the attachment surface (distance defined by the thickness of the spacer in the manner taught by Heim as best shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 21, Matsura in view of Heim is seen as further disclosing the attachment surface (for the purpose of this claim, the downwardly facing surface of groove 140 as shown in Figure 2 of Heim is relied upon as the attachment surface) is recessed in a wall of the housing facing the interior (as shown in Figures 2 and 6 of Heim).
Regarding Claim 31, Matsura in view of Heim is seen as further disclosing the housing includes an annular recessed attachment surface (as taught by Heim, recessed surface of groove 140); the gas-tight membrane (13j of Matsura) includes a circumferential connection section (i.e. the radially outermost section clamped in the manner taught by Heim at region 122); and the device further includes a annular support (as taught by Heim, the upwardly facing surface 118 of 114 engaging the membrane provides an annular support) including an annular circumferential attachment surface 118, the circumferential connection section (radially outermost portion of the membrane) of the gas-tight membrane being attached to the annular circumferential attachment surface 118 in a gas-tight manner (in the manner desired by Matsura), the annular support (the upwardly facing surface 118 of 114 as taught by Heim) further including a radially outwardly extending coupling flange 136 connected to the annular recessed attachment surface (at groove 140) of the housing.
Regarding Claim 33, Matsura in view of Sasaki further discloses the gas-tight membrane (13j of Matsura) and the gas-permeable membrane (118 as taught by Sasaki) each have a free cross-sectional area (i.e. the areas of the membranes in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Matsura in view of Sasaki does not disclose specific dimensions of the membranes and therefore Matsura in view of Sasaki does not disclose the free cross-sectional area of the gas permeable membrane is smaller than the free cross-sectional area of the gas-tight membrane.
However, the selection of the particular sizes of the membranes is seen to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice require mere changes in size/proportion and it has been generally held that mere changes in size/proportion are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura in view of Sasaki such that the membranes are any desired sizes, including sizes such that the free cross-sectional area of the gas permeable membrane is smaller than the free cross-sectional area of the gas-tight membrane, for the purpose of providing desired flow rates through the respective flow passages.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsura (US Patent 10,439,184) in view of Sasaki (WO 2020/138254) and further in view of Heim (US Patent Application 2013/0032219) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (DE 102013207872; cited with machine translation).
Regarding Claim 28, Matsura further discloses the housing 13 includes an integrally formed one piece cover (as shown in Figure 2) attached to a battery housing 11.
Matsura does not disclose the one piece cover having a plurality of bores defined through the cover for receiving fasteners for attaching the emergency degassing device to a battery housing.
Wagner teaches a battery 1 and further teaches a cover 4 having a plurality of bores 14 defined through the cover 4 for receiving fasteners (as shown in Figure 2) for attaching the device to a battery housing 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura such that the housing includes a plurality of bores for receiving fasteners as taught by Wagner for the purpose of providing a straightforward mechanism for attaching the cover to the battery housing.
Regarding Claim 29, Matsura in view of Wagner further discloses a plurality of sleeves (as taught by Wagner at 15) received in the plurality of bores (as taught by Wagner at 14), each of the sleeves 15 being connected to the cover within its respective bore (connected to the cover 13 of Matsura in the manner in which the sleeves are connected to cover 4 of Wagner), each of the sleeves providing a bearing surface for one of the fasteners (as shown in Figure 2 of Wagner).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsura (US Patent 10,439,184) in view of Sasaki (WO 2020/138254) and further in view of Heim (US Patent Application 2013/0032219) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US Patent 10,529,969).
Regarding Claim 30, Matsura further discloses the housing 13 includes a cover (as shown in Figure 2) attached to a battery housing 11.
Matsura does not disclose the cover having a seal mount; and the device further includes a circumferential seal received by the seal mount and forming a circumferential sealing surface for sealing against the battery housing.
Ogawa teaches a battery case and further teaches a cover 102 having a seal mount (at 104b as shown in Figure 10); and the device further includes a circumferential seal 1012 (it is noted that the term “circumferential” is understood to require a closed shape and not necessarily a circular shape in light of applicant’s specification as filed in which applicant’s circumferential seal mount 28 is not circular as shown in applicant’s Figure 3) received by the seal mount (as shown in Figure 10) and forming a circumferential sealing surface (as described above; 1012 is seen to form a “circumferential” sealing surface in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s non-circular seal) for sealing against the battery housing 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura such that the cover includes a seal mount and seal as taught by Ogawa for the purpose of preventing debris from entering the battery housing.
As described above, Matsura in view of Ogawa is seen as disclosing a “circumferential” seal as understood in light of applicant’s specification as filed. Alternatively, in the event that the claim is seen to require a circular seal, such a modification would require a mere change in shape/form and it has been generally held that mere changes in shape/form are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Matsura in view of Ogawa such that the seal is any desired shape, including circular, for the purpose of accommodating a particularly shape battery housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 22-27, and 32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wakimoto et al. (US Patent 10,811,650) teaches a battery having a valve 19 and separate breakable member 18. Mayer et al. (US Patent 5,741,606) teaches a battery with a burst disk 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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 F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753