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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (JP 2011-014321 A, hereinafter Okada, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Okada teaches a battery system (Fig. 2-4) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (item 1);
a battery system enclosure (item 30) surrounded by an external environment, configured to (functional limitations) house the plurality of battery cells, and including an enclosure tray (item 31) configured to (functional limitations) support the plurality of battery cells and an enclosure cover (item 32) configured to (functional limitations) engage the enclosure tray and seal the battery system enclosure; and
an exhaust manifold (Fig. 8-11, item 20) arranged between the plurality of battery cells and the enclosure cover and having multiple individual gas paths in fluid communication with an exhaust outlet (para. 43) and configured to (functional limitations) collect high-temperature gases from each of the plurality of battery cells and guide the high-temperature gases from each of the plurality of battery cells to the exhaust outlet;
wherein the exhaust outlet is configured to (functional limitations) discharge the high-temperature gases distally from the plurality of battery cells.
Since the battery system of Okada and the claimed system are structurally indistinguishable, the system of Okada is capable of all the claimed functions.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Re Claim 2. Okada teaches wherein the plurality of battery cells is organized into a battery module (item 2) and include a first row of battery cells and an adjacent second row of battery cells (Fig. 4-6).
Re Claim 3. Okada teaches wherein: the battery system is a battery cell pack; the plurality of battery cells is organized into individual battery modules (item 2); the exhaust manifold has a modular construction (Fig. 8-11) including exhaust manifold sub-assemblies; and each battery cell module includes a respective exhaust manifold sub-assembly (Fig. 8) configured to interface with another exhaust manifold sub-assembly corresponding to an adjacent battery cell module.
Re Claim 4. Okada teaches a temperature-sensitive component (para. 45-48) arranged inside the battery system enclosure between the plurality of battery cells and the enclosure cover, wherein the exhaust outlet is configured to discharge the high-temperature gases distally from the temperature-sensitive component.
Re Claim 5. Okada teaches wherein the exhaust outlet is in the external environment (para. 43).
Re Claim 6. Okada teaches wherein each of the plurality of battery cells is a prismatic cell (Fig. 2-4) having a respective cell vent (Fig. 8, item 12) oriented toward the enclosure cover, and wherein the exhaust manifold interfaces with each prismatic cell at the respective cell vent (Fig. 8).
Re Claim 7. Okada teaches wherein the exhaust manifold includes gas channels defining the individual gas paths, and wherein the gas channels are fluidly sealed to each of the plurality of battery cells at the corresponding cell vents (Fig. 8-11).
Re Claim 8. Okada teaches wherein the exhaust manifold is mounted to at least one of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 11).
Re Claim 9. Okada teaches wherein the exhaust manifold is snapped onto the at least one of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 11).
Re Claim 10. Okada teaches wherein the exhaust manifold is constructed from a high-temperature fiber-reinforced thermoplastic (para. 31-33).
Re Claim 11. Okada teaches a motor vehicle (para. 1) comprising:
a power-source (para. 1) configured to generate power-source torque; and
a battery system (see rejection of Claim 1) configured to supply electrical energy to the power-source, the battery system including:
a plurality of battery cells;
a battery system enclosure surrounded by an external environment, configured to house the plurality of battery cells, and including an enclosure tray configured to support the plurality of battery cells and an enclosure cover configured to engage the enclosure tray and seal the battery system enclosure; and
an exhaust manifold arranged between the plurality of battery cells and the enclosure cover and having multiple individual gas paths in fluid communication with an exhaust outlet and configured to collect high-temperature gases from each of the plurality of battery cells and guide the high-temperature gases from each of the plurality of battery cells to the exhaust outlet; wherein the exhaust outlet is configured to discharge the high-temperature gases distally from the plurality of battery cells.
Re Claims 12-19. See rejections of Claims 2-7, 9 and 10.
Re Claim 20. See rejections of Claims 1 and 6, in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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 E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
1/12/2026