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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-5 and 7-13 are as previously presented. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 14 has been newly added.
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)(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 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hernadez (US 2023/0026302).
As to claim 14, Hernadez a battery pack (figure 1 #100, [0023], discussed throughout), comprising: a plurality of battery modules each battery module having one or more battery cells configured to store and release energy and stacked in a first direction (figure 1 #104a-I, or just any two of the modules, [0023], discussed throughout, note under broadest reasonable interpretation the first direction can be the stacking of the cells or modules); a pack case provided on at least one side of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #102, figures 2-4 #202, 302 and #402, [0023], discussed throughout and the floor on which the battery modules reside), covering at least a portion of an outside of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #102 and #104a-I, [0023], discussed throughout), and having at least one opening formed therein (figure 1 #108, #110 and/or #112, [0023], discussed throughout); and a melting member provided in the at least one opening of the pack case to seal the at least one opening and configured to open the at least one opening by being melted by heat generated from one or more battery modules among the plurality of battery modules (figures 2-6, [0017], [0038], [0042], [0045] and discussed throughout), wherein the pack case (figure 1) comprise a body portion (annotated figure 1 below, the body portion is a portion of the side) located at a from or a read of the plurality of battery modules (annotated figure 1, the front and rear are interchangeable without further structural limitations) and a bent portion formed in a shape in which the upper and lower ends of the body portion are bent (annotated figure 1 below, OR the body can be both sides and the upper and lower are different sides, OR the body can be the bottom and the bent could be the top should it be considered that the bent portion is not part of the body ANY interpretation would read on the instant claimed limitation), and wherein the at least one opening is formed in the bent portion is formed in the bent portion and a portion of the body that is not bent portion (annotated figure 1 #110 and #112, note as it is at least one opening it can be more then one opening and there is two openings on each side one on the bent portion and one on the not bent portion thus reading on the instant claimed invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2023/0026302).
As to claim 1, Hernadez a battery pack (figure 1 #100, [0023], discussed throughout), comprising: a plurality of battery modules each battery module having one or more battery cells configured to store and release energy and stacked in a first direction (figure 1 #104a-I, or just any two of the modules, [0023], discussed throughout, note under broadest reasonable interpretation the first direction can be the stacking of the cells or modules); a pack case provided on at least one side of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #102, figures 2-4 #202, 302 and #402, [0023], discussed throughout and the floor on which the battery modules reside), covering at least a portion of an outside of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #102 and #104a-I, [0023], discussed throughout), and having at least one opening formed therein (figure 1 #108, #110 and/or #112, [0023], discussed throughout); and a melting member provided in the at least one opening of the pack case to seal the at least one opening and configured to open the at least one opening by being melted by heat generated from one or more battery modules among the plurality of battery modules (figures 2-6, [0017], [0038], [0042], [0045] and discussed throughout).
Hernadez is silent to wherein at least one opening is configured to be elongated in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction such that a dimension of the at least one opening in the second direction is greater than a dimension of the at least one opening in the first direction. However, 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 change the shape of the at least one opening to an oval or rectangle as a mere change in shape or an aesthetic design change as the function of the hole would not change (see MPEP 2144.04 I or IV B).
As to claim 2, Hernadez discloses wherein, the pack case is configured to guide generated gas when gas is generated from one or more battery modules among the plurality of battery modules, and wherein the melting member is configured to be melted by the generated gas (figures 1-6, [0017], [0038], [0042], [0045] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 3, Hernadez discloses wherein, the plurality of battery modules are configured to be disposed side by side in a left-right direction to discharge venting gas forward or backward (figure 1 #106, [0026], the stack can be from left to right, discussed throughout), and wherein the pack case is disposed on at least one of a front and a rear of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #106, [0026], the flow can be from the front or back of the modules).
As to claim 4, Hernadez discloses wherein, the pack case comprises a body portion located at the front or the rear of the plurality of battery modules and a bent portion formed in a shape in which upper and lower ends of the body portion are bent (figure 1 #102, [0023], discussed throughout, see annotated figure 1 above and discussion in claim 14 above as to several ways the prior art can read on the instant claimed invention).
As to claim 5, Hernadez discloses wherein, the at least one opening is formed in both the body portion and the bent portion (figure 1 #102, [0023], can be at portion #112 and #110, this is because the bent portion can be part of the body portion or the at least one opening can be two openings in two different location, also see discussion on claim 14 above for other interpretations that read on the instant claimed limitation, discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, Hernadez discloses wherein, the at least one opening is formed so that at least a portion thereof is located between two battery modules of the plurality of battery modules (figure 1 #104d and #140h, the opening #110 is between, [0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 8, Hernadez discloses wherein, the pack case is located on at least one of a front and a rear of the plurality of battery modules, and wherein the plurality of battery modules are configured such that at least a portion thereof is spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance to form a spaced portion and at least one of an upper portion and lower portion of the spaced portion is exposed (figure 1, there are several location that meet the claim requirement, [0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, Hernadez discloses an energy storage system comprising a battery pack according to claim 1 (figure 1 #100, a battery pack is an energy storage system comprising a battery pack, [0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, Hernadez discloses a vehicle comprising a battery pack according to claim 1 ([0003], [0004], [0021], discussed throughout).
As to claim 11, Hernadez discloses wherein, a space between the plurality of battery modules and the pack case forms a channel for generated gas (figure 1, there are several location that meet the claim requirement, [0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 12, Hernadez discloses wherein, the pack case has three sections forming a U-shape, and wherein the at least one opening extends into each of the three sections (figure 1 the walls and floor would make a U shape, thus at locations between #108a and #108b, then #110a and #110b and lastly #112a and #112b, also a part of each vent can be considered a U shape as it is a circle and thus comprises a U shape, discussed throughout).
As to claim 13, Hernadez discloses wherein, the at least one opening is a first opening and a second opening, wherein the first opening has three sections and two bridges, the two bridges separating the three sections from each other, and wherein the second opening has two sections and one bridge, the one bridge separating the two sections from each other (figures 5 and 6, there are several opening in figure 5 and 5 i.e. the bridges can be #506a-d, picking the required ones, thus reading on the instant claimed invention, discussed throughout). Alternatively, it would have been above to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to adjust the openings as a mere change in shape or aesthetic design change baring any criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144 I or IV B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 5/8/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-13 under Hernadez have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of modified Hernadez. See newly modified rejection above for amended claims and new added rejection for newly added claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
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