DETAILED 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 has two issues. First, the recitation of the limitation "the bursting cap" has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This can be overcome by amending the claim to depend from claim 2.
Second, claim 4 recites “the latter” which is indefinite because it could be taken as “the main body”, “the bursting cap”, or “the retaining flange”. Based on the as-filed disclosure, it appears that the intent is that the bursting cap surrounds the retaining flange of the main body. This rejection can be overcome by replacing ‘the latter’ with ‘said retaining flange of the main body’.
Claim 6 does not depend from any claim and is indefinite for that reason. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted claim 6 as depending from claim 1.
Claim 12 has two recitations of “in particular”. The phrase “in particular” is akin to the phrase "for example", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Again, this occurs twice in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,294,429 B2) in view of Mack et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,947,429 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Anglin et al. disclose a battery cell closure strip for a battery cell of pouch-type design1 (Figures; noting housing body has body and end cap which can be taken as a ‘closure strip’), comprising: a main body (ibid; end cap assembly) having: a degassing duct which extends along the vertical axis V of the battery cell closure strip from an inner side to an outer side thereof (col. 12, line 52 bridging col. 13, line 62; and col. 14, lines 53 – 60; e.g. cavity 248), wherein the degassing duct is closed during normal operation of the battery cell closure strip by means of a media-operated sealing element which opens the degassing duct when a predefined internal limit pressure Plim is reached (ibid: plug); and having an emergency degassing duct (col. 14, line 61 bridging col. 15, line 61; and col. 16, lines 50 -63: cutout), which is closed by means of a bursting valve which opens the emergency degassing duct when a nominal internal bursting pressure Pcrit, where Pcrit > Plim, is reached or exceeded (col. 14, line 61 bridging col. 15, line 61; and col. 17, line 12 bridging col. 18, line 48: P2 or P3 is greater than P1 when this bursting valve opens).
Anglin et al. fail to disclose the second “emergency degassing duct” having an opening cross section through which media can flow that is at least 10 times larger than that of the degassing duct nor where the bursting valve comprises a bursting membrane.
However, Mack et al. teach that a similar Lithium Ion rechargable battery system comprising two safety release structures (Title; Abstract; Figures) wherein these valves/release systems can be in an upper body part (“closure strip”) (col. 5, lines 1 – 24) of a cavity housing a battery (col. 6, lines 44 – 61), wherein the valve and valve components, including the diameters of the valves can be tailored to control when the pressure release occurs, etc. (col. 10, lines 31 – 58 and at least col. 7, lines 27 – 45). Mack et al. further teach that the use of bursting valves and membranes are known in the art (col. 5, lines 1 – 24).
The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative diameters of the different release vents through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Mack et al. regarding the fact that different diameters for the two venting structures are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the exact choice of pressure relief valve, substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that there are many types of relief valve structures, including ‘bursting valves with bursting membranes’ and that all of these pressure relief structures are functional equivalents in the field of suitable means to provide a pressure relief valve that triggers at an indicated pressure2. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the device of Anglin et al. to utilize an ‘emergency degassing duct’ meeting the claimed limitations as taught by Mack et al. and as recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as optimizing a size of the emergency degassing duct opening and using a ‘bursting membrane’ would have been well within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 2 - 4, the bursting membrane (‘bursting cap’) is taught as discussed above. Its application on a flange to hold it in place would have been routine and obvious to a skilled artisan as holding an elastic membrane on a flange is conventional in the art3. I.e. the Examiner deems there is nothing novel about using a blasting membrane/cap held in place by a retaining flange as this would have been viewed as a routine and conventional way to secure a blasting valve/membrane (and the prior art teaches the use of said blasting valves/membranes as discussed above).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Anglin et al. disclose a plug meeting the claimed limitations (see citations above, especially col. 12, line 17 bridging col. 13, line 18 and col. 14, lines 53 – 60: noting that the plug can be released, held in place in the cavity, when then resealed per the above disclosure).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Anglin et al. disclose that the pressure relief structures can be formed anywhere in the outer body housing/capping structure. As such, the Examiner deems that the exact location is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and the various structural locations are all functionally equivalent. In the instant case, a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that there are many possible locations for the disclosed relief valve structures, including as an extension of the main body meeting the limitations of claims 8 and 9, and that all of these pressure relief structure locations are functional equivalents in the field of suitable means to provide a pressure relief valve that triggers at an indicated pressure. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 10, while the Examiner deems that this must be necessarily present for the end cap assembly to allow the battery to function as a battery, the Examiner notes that Anglin et al. disclose electrical contacts meeting the claimed limitations (col. 12, line 17 bridging col. 13, line 18).
Regarding claim 11, Anglin et al. and Mack et al. disclose housings that include a battery cell, thereby meeting the limitations of this claim (Figures of both and see citations above).
Regarding claim 12, Anglin et al. disclose housing/end cap materials meeting the claimed limitations (see at least columns 11 – 16). The Examiner also notes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use plastics or metals, including thermoplastics and aluminum, as these are conventional materials to form battery housing structures out of as they are light-weight, rigid and easy to manufacture with. I.e. the Examiner does not deem that any of the limitations of claim 12 are novel or non-obvious to a skilled artisan when looking for materials to form the main body out of.
Regarding claim 13, while Anglin et al. disclose a non-rechargable battery structure, Mack et al. disclose a substantially identical structure also having two relief venting structures used in a rechargable battery for a vehicle, thereby meeting the limitations of the claims (see entire disclosure of Mack et al., as well at least col. 2, lines 8 – 62).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. in view of Mack et al. as applied above, and further in view of Konzelmann et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0145848 A1).
The Examiner notes that Konzelmann et al. qualifies as prior art with an effective date of March 19, 2021, which is before Applicant’s effective filing date of October 29, 2021, but _after_ the filing date of November 10, 2020 based on Applicant’s foreign priority document. However, the present claim for foreign priority has not been perfected by the filing of a certified English translation of the priority document. Filing of such a certified English translation would obviate this rejection and bring claim 5 into condition for allowance.
Anglin et al. and Mack et al. are relied upon as described above.
Neither of the above disclose a movable cutting element to perforate the bursting membrane as recited in claim 5.
However, Konzelmann et al. teach that bursting membranes (diaphragms) that expand into a FIXED cutting edge are conventional in the art and are taught as BACKGROUND bursting membrane structures (see at least Paragraphs 0001 – 0003). This is conventional background teaching not relevant to claim 5, per se, but does provide material support that bursting membranes (diaphragms) are conventional in the art, albeit usually wherein the cutting mechanism is FIXED. Konzelmann et al. goes on to disclose an improved bursting membrane structure wherein the cutting element is movable (cutting element to have a deflection piece that also is displaced when the diaphragm is displaced – see at least Paragraphs 0004 – 0008, as well as entire disclosure of Konzelmann et al.). Konzelmann et al. teach that this leads to improved tolerance and control of the bursting process (ibid).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Anglin et al. in view of Mack et al. to use a bursting membrane and cutting means as recited in claim 5 and as taught by Konzelmann et al., as using a cutting means that meets the limitations of claim 5 allows for improved tolerance and control of the bursting process.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As indicated above, claim 5 is only rejected by prior art that can be antedated by perfection of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority. Perfection of this claim to priority, incorporation of the limitations of claim 5 into claim 1, and amendments to address the 112(b) issues would appear to overcome the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
November 19, 2025
1 “for a battery cell of pouch-type design” is an intended use/preamble limitation and does not breathe further life or meaning into the claim; e.g. any battery cell contained within a housing can be considered a ‘pouch-type design’.
2 As additional support that these ‘bursting valves with bursting membranes’ are readily available and known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, see Applicant’s as-filed disclosure, Paragraph 13, which explicitly states “Such bursting membranes are also available on the market at low cost and are easy to mount on the base body”.
3 As additional support for the Examiner’s position of routine obviousness, see background section and entire disclosure of Konzelmann et al., applied below to claim 5.