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 § 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 11 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “a check valve” in line 1. However, “a check valve” is previously recited in claim 1, line 7 (clause 5). “A check valve” recited in claim 11 appears to refer to a check valve different from “a check valve” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, “a check valve” recited in claim 11 should be distinctly identified. Therefore, for examination purpose, “a check valve” recited in claim 11 is interpreted as “a second check valve”. Applicant is advised to amend “a check valve” in line 1 of claim 11 to recite “a second check valve” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 15 recites “a check valve” in line 1. However, “a check valve” is previously recited in claim 14, line 12 (clause 6). “A check valve” recited in claim 15 appears to refer to a check valve different from “a check valve” recited in claim 14. Accordingly, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, “a check valve” recited in claim 15 should be distinctly identified. Therefore, for examination purpose, “a check valve” recited in claim 15 is interpreted as “a second check valve”. Applicant is advised to amend “a check valve” in line 1 of claim 15 to recite “a second check valve” for clarity and consistency.
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, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (US 20220006155 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches a pouch battery cell ([0209]: the housing 100 may be a pouched-type housing) comprising: a pouch enclosure (housing 100); a battery cell (power storage device element 400) arranged in the pouch enclosure; a first terminal connected to the battery cell through the pouch enclosure; a second terminal connected to the battery cell through the pouch enclosure (a positive electrode and a negative electrode of tabs 300 in Fig. 1); and a check valve (Valve device 200, disclosed to be a check valve according to [0203]) including a first gas channel (outlet O1 in Fig. 7) in fluid communication with an inner volume of the pouch enclosure ([0093]) and a second gas channel (Vent passage A1 in Fig. 7), wherein the check valve vents gas from the pouch enclosure when a difference between pressure at the first gas channel and the second gas channel is greater than a predetermined pressure difference and restricts flow of gas from the second gas channel to the first gas channel ([0129]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki further teaches a limitation wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are arranged at opposite ends of the pouch enclosure and the check valve is arranged on a longitudinal side surface of the pouch enclosure ([0085] and Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki further teaches a limitation wherein the pouch battery cell of claim 1, further comprising a sealing layer (seal attachment portion 220) arranged between an outer surface of the check valve and an inner surface of the pouch enclosure (Fig. 8 and [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki further teaches a limitation wherein the check valve comprises a duck bill valve ([0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki further teaches a limitation wherein the check valve comprises an umbrella valve ([0127]).
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, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenren et al. (CN 217740727 U).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki fails to define a limitation wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are arranged at one end of the pouch enclosure and the check valve is arranged between the first terminal and the second terminal. However, Wenren teaches the limitation wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are arranged at one end of the pouch enclosure and a valve is arranged between the first terminal and the second terminal (Fig. 2, exhaust valve 4 positioned between two terminals). Wenren further teaches that this arrangement improves the exhaust effect of the gas, and reduces the residual gas (abstract). Further, Sasaki and Wenren are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement taught by Sasaki, wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are arranged at opposite ends of the pouch enclosure and the check valve is arranged on a longitudinal side surface of the pouch enclosure, by adopting the arrangement taught by Wenren, wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are arranged at one end of the pouch enclosure and the valve is arranged between the first terminal and the second terminal in order to improve the exhaust effect of the gas, and to reduce the residual gas (abstract). Accordingly, replacing Sasaki’s check valve with a Wenren’s exhaust valve represents a simple substitution of one known element for another known element, yielding predictable results, and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP §2144.06).
Claims 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20240387922 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the pouch battery cell of claim 1, further comprises: a first tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along one side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure; and a second tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along an opposite side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure. However, Kim teaches the limitation in which a pouch battery cell, further comprises: a first tube (tube 300 in Fig. 8) connected to the first gas channel of the check valve (check valve 320 in Fig. 9) and extending along one side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure (Fig. 8 and [0096]); and a second tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along an opposite side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure (FIG. 8, FIG. 9, [0024, [0096], [0128]). Kim further teaches that this assembly discharges fluid from inside the battery and permits fluid flow in only one direction in response to an increase in internal fluid pressure ([0129]). Further, Sasaki and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the check valve taught by Sasaki to include the tube arrangement taught by Kim. Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve gas discharge within the battery and to allows fluid to flow in only one direction in response to an increase in internal fluid pressure, thereby improving efficiency and venting management within a battery module ([0129]).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which a battery comprises: a module enclosure; and N of the pouch battery cell of claim 1 arranged in the module enclosure, where N is an integer greater than one. However, Kim teaches the limitation in which a battery comprising: a module enclosure (module frame 200 in Fig. 1); and N of the pouch battery cell (abstract and Fig. 2) arranged in the module enclosure, where N is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2). Kim teaches that the battery module can be applied to various devices that require high energy capacity ([0157]). Further, Sasaki and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a plurality of said pouch battery cell taught by Sasaki within a module enclosure as taught by Kim thereby forming a stacked battery module suitable for use in devices requiring higher energy capacity. Such a modification merely involves combining known pouch battery cells into a known module structure to increase overall energy output ([0157]), which is a predictable design in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Kim further teaches a limitation in which the battery of claim 10, further comprises a check valve (interpreted as “a second check valve”) (Fig. 9, check valve 320, [0128], [0129]) arranged on the module enclosure and configured to allow gas flow to exit the module enclosure when a difference between a first pressure inside of the module enclosure is greater than a second pressure outside of the module enclosure and to prevent gas flow into the module enclosure ([0130]). Kim also teaches that using said second check valve allows fluid to flow in only one direction and not to flow in the opposite direction according to an increase in internal fluid pressure ([0129]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim, to include a second check valve as further taught by Kim. Such a modification would prevent gas flow into the module enclosure while allowing the discharge of gas from the module enclosure ([0129]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 208093693 U).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the pouch battery cell of claim 1, further comprises a first tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along one side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure; and a second tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and including an inlet located adjacent to the check valve. However, Yang teaches the limitation in which a battery cell, further comprises a first tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along one side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure; and a second tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and including an inlet located adjacent to the check valve (Fig. 5, battery cell 2, check valve 262, tube 26, inlet end). Yang further teaches that this assembly effectively discharge the internal gases (Description). Further, Sasaki and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the check valve taught by Sasaki to include the tube arrangement taught by Yang. Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve gas discharge within the battery and to allows fluid to flow in only one direction in response to an increase in internal fluid pressure, thereby improving efficiency and venting management within a battery module (Description).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varatharajah et al. (US 20190379018 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the pouch battery cell of claim 1, further comprises a flame arrestor connected to the second gas channel of the check valve. However, Varatharajah teaches the limitation in which a battery cell further comprises a flame arrestor (flame arrestor elements 181) connected to the second gas channel of the check valve ([0064] and [0065]). A flame arrestor is used to enhance safety by preventing flame or spark propagation ([0065]). Further, Sasaki and Varatharajah are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify said check valve taught by Sasaki by incorporating said flame arrestor as taught by Varatharajah in order to decrease flame temperature and quench vented gas flame ([0065]).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bergery et al. (US 20230011662 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Modified Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the battery of claim 10 further comprises a manifold including an outlet and N inlets connected to a gas channel of the check valve of each of the N pouch battery cells, respectively. However, Bergery teaches the limitation in which a battery comprises a manifold (housing [0036]) including an outlet (discharge port 30, Fig. 1, [0038]) and N inlets (through-opening 22) connected to a gas channel (discharge duct 10) of the check valve of each of the N pouch battery cells (valve 11 for each battery housing 20), respectively. Bergery further teaches that this assembly is for discharging the gases generated in the event of thermal runaway of a battery, which is shared by several batteries, with no risk of thermal runaway contamination between batteries ([0004]).
Further, modified Sasaki and Bergery are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim, to include an outlet and N inlets connected to a gas channel of the check valve of each of the N pouch battery cells, as taught by Bergery. Such a modification would more efficiently discharge the gases generated in the event of thermal runaway ([0004]).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Obrist et al. (US 20170279169 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, teaches all limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Modified Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the battery of claim 12 further comprises a molecular sieve check valve connected to the outlet of the manifold and configured to allow gas to flow out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, prevent liquid from flowing out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, and prevent gas and liquid from flowing through the molecular sieve check valve to the outlet of the manifold. However, Obrist teaches the limitation in which a battery further comprises a molecular sieve check valve (claim 1, [0020], wherein a valve is arranged with a gas-permeable and fluid-tight membrane, in view of instant application [0049] stating that “sieve check valve” includes one or more “gas permeable membrane”) connected to the outlet of the manifold (Fig. 2, 17 and 18) and configured to allow gas to flow out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, prevent liquid from flowing out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, and prevent gas and liquid from flowing through the molecular sieve check valve to the outlet of the manifold ([0020], [0044]). Obrist further teaches that the gas permeable membrane arranged in the valve ensures a sufficient exchange of air in the housing and at the same time prevents the ingress of moisture ([0044]). Further, modified Sasaki and Obrist are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the check valve taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, to include gas permeable membrane, thereby forming a sieve check valve and connecting it to the outlet of the manifold, as taught by Obrist. Such a modification would ensure sufficient exchange of air in the housing and at the same time prevents the ingress of moisture ([0044]).
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 20220006155 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20240387922 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki teaches a pouch battery cell ([0209]: the housing 100 may be a pouched-type housing) including: a pouch enclosure (housing 100); a battery cell (power storage device 10) arranged in the pouch enclosure; a first terminal connected to the battery cell through the pouch enclosure; a second terminal connected the battery cell through the pouch enclosure (a positive electrode and a negative electrode of tabs 300 in Fig. 1); and a check valve (check valve 200 in Fig. 1) including a first gas channel (outlet O1 in Fig. 7) in fluid communication with an inner volume of the pouch enclosure and a second gas channel (vent passage A1 in Fig. 7), wherein the check valve vents gas in the pouch enclosure when a difference between pressure at the first gas channel and the second gas channel is greater than a predetermined pressure difference and restricts flow of gas from the second gas channel to the first gas channel ([0129]). Sasaki fails to teach a limitation in which a battery module comprises a module enclosure; and N pouch battery cells arranged in the module enclosure, where N is an integer greater than one. However, Kim teaches the limitation in which a battery module comprises: a module enclosure (module frame 200 in Fig. 1); and N pouch battery cells (abstract and Fig. 2) arranged in the module enclosure, where N is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2). Kim teaches that the battery module can be applied to various devices that require high energy capacity ([0157]). Further, Sasaki and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a plurality of said pouch battery cell taught by Sasaki within a module enclosure as taught by Kim thereby forming a battery module suitable for use in devices requiring higher energy capacity. Such a modification merely involves combining known pouch battery cells into a known module structure to increase overall energy output ([0157]), which is a predictable design in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Kim further teaches a limitation in which the battery module of claim 14, further comprises a check valve (interpreted as “a second check valve”) (Fig. 9, check valve 320, [0128], [0129]) arranged on the module enclosure and configured to allow gas flow to exit the module enclosure when a difference between a first pressure inside of the module enclosure is greater than a second pressure outside of the module enclosure and to prevent gas flow into the module enclosure ([0130]). Kim also teaches that using said second check valve allows fluid to flow in only one direction and not to flow in the opposite direction according to an increase in internal fluid pressure ([0129]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim, to include a second check valve as further taught by Kim. Such a modification would prevent gas flow into the module enclosure while allowing the discharge of gas from the module enclosure ([0129]).
Regarding claim 18, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Sasaki further teaches a limitation wherein the pouch battery cell includes a sealing layer (seal attachment portion 220) arranged between an outer surface of the check valve and an inner surface of the pouch enclosure (Fig. 8 and [0122]).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all claim limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Kim further teaches a limitation in which a pouch battery cell, further comprises a first tube (tube 300 in Fig. 8) connected to the first gas channel of the check valve (check valve 320 in Fig. 9) and extending along one side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure (Fig. 8 and [0096]); and a second tube connected to the first gas channel of the check valve and extending along an opposite side of the pouch enclosure towards a middle of the pouch enclosure (FIG. 8, FIG. 9, [0024, [0096], [0128]). Kim further teaches that this assembly discharges fluid from inside the battery and permits fluid flow in only one direction in response to an increase in internal fluid pressure ([0129]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the check valve taught by Sasaki to include the tube arrangement taught by Kim. Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve gas discharge within the battery and to allows fluid to flow in only one direction in response to an increase in internal fluid pressure, thereby improving efficiency and venting management within a battery module ([0129]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bergery et al. (US 20230011662 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki as modified by Kim teaches all limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Modified Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the battery module of claim 14, further comprises a manifold including an outlet and N inlets connected to a gas channel of the check valve of each the N pouch battery cells, respectively. However, Bergery teaches the limitation in which a battery comprises a manifold (housing [0036]) including an outlet (discharge port 30, Fig. 1, [0038]) and N inlets (through-opening 22) connected to a gas channel (discharge duct 10) of the check valve of each of the N pouch battery cells (valve 11 for each battery housing 20), respectively. Bergery further teaches that this assembly is for discharging the gases generated in the event of thermal runaway of a battery, which is shared by several batteries, with no risk of thermal runaway contamination between batteries ([0004]). Further, modified Sasaki and Bergery are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim, to include an outlet and N inlets connected to a gas channel of the check valve of each of the N pouch battery cells, as taught by Bergery. Such a modification would more efficiently discharge the gases generated in the event of thermal runaway ([0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Obrist et al. (US 20170279169 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, teaches all limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Modified Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the battery module of claim 16, further comprises a molecular sieve check valve connected to the outlet of the manifold and configured to allow gas to flow out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, prevent liquid from flowing out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, and prevent gas and liquid from flowing through the molecular sieve check valve to the outlet of the manifold. However, Obrist teaches the limitation in which a battery further comprises a molecular sieve check valve (claim 1, [0020], wherein a valve is arranged with a gas-permeable and fluid-tight membrane, in view of instant application [0049] stating that “sieve check valve” includes one or more “gas permeable membrane”) connected to the outlet of the manifold (Fig. 2, 17 and 18) and configured to allow gas to flow out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, prevent liquid from flowing out of the outlet of the manifold through the molecular sieve check valve, and prevent gas and liquid from flowing through the molecular sieve check valve to the outlet of the manifold ([0020], [0044]). Obrist further teaches that the gas permeable membrane arranged in the valve ensures a sufficient exchange of air in the housing and at the same time prevents the ingress of moisture ([0044]). Further, modified Sasaki and Obrist are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of pouch battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the check valve taught by Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, to include gas permeable membrane, thereby forming a sieve check valve and connecting it to the outlet of the manifold, as taught by Obrist. Such a modification would ensure sufficient exchange of air in the housing and at the same time prevents the ingress of moisture ([0044]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Varatharajah et al. (US 20190379018 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki, as modified by Kim and Bergery, teaches all claim limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Modified Sasaki fails to disclose a limitation in which the battery module of claim 16, further comprising a flame arrestor connected to the outlet of the manifold. However, Varatharajah teaches the limitation in which a battery cell further comprises a flame arrestor (flame arrestor elements 181). A flame arrestor is used to enhance safety by preventing flame or spark propagation ([0065]). Further, modified Sasaki and Varatharajah are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify said manifold taught by modified Sasaki by incorporating said flame arrestor as taught by Varatharajah in order to decrease flame temperature and quench vented gas flame ([0065]). In Varatharajah, the flame arrestor is sealed to a recess of the valve assembly rather than to the manifold, as claimed. However, incorporating Varatharajah’s flame arrestor into the manifold, taught by modified Sasaki, would merely involve a rearrangement of parts to connect the flame arrestor to the manifold instead of the valve, and such a rearrangement without any new or unexpected results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728