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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 5/31/2024 has been considered by examiner.
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.
Claim 17 and dependent claims 18-19 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 17 recites the limitation "the battery cell" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 2, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nie et al. (CN 112563646, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter Nie).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Nie teaches an apparatus comprising a shockproof battery (“battery comprising at least one battery cell”), the shockproof battery comprising main body (“casing”) housing the shockproof battery [0015, “The present invention discloses an automatic electrolyte replenishment shockproof battery, comprising a main body 11, Nie Fig. 1]. The main housing also comprises a mechanism which comprises a float rod (“shaft”) that moves within the main body based on electrolyte leakage [0024, “When the electrolyte leaks, the electrolyte enters the damping chamber 14 and enters the float chamber 48 through the inlet hole 46, causing the float 47 to rise. The rise of the float 47 causes the float rod 49 to rise”].
Further regarding claim 2, Nie teaches that the movement of the float rod causes an inclined block to rise and get stuck in a lower inclined groove, which causes a horizontal moving block to move forward [0024]. The movement of the horizontal moving block causes a vertical moving block to get stuck in an upper inclined groove, which locks the horizontal moving block [0024]. The movement of the horizontal moving block prevents a positive terminal connecting block and a negative terminal connecting block from contacting a positive terminal rod and a negative terminal rod in the battery, thus cutting off the power of the battery and preventing it from being used (“electrically disengaging”) [0024].
Further regarding claim 15, as described previously in the rejection of claim 1, Nie teaches that the movement of the float rod is based on the leakage of electrolyte [0024].
Regarding claim 20, Nie teaches a method comprising providing a shockproof battery (“battery comprising at least one battery cell”) and a main body (“casing”) housing the shockproof battery [0015, “The present invention discloses an automatic electrolyte replenishment shockproof battery, comprising a main body 11, Nie Fig. 1]. The main housing also comprises a mechanism which comprises a float rod (“shaft”) that moves within the main body based on electrolyte leakage (“pop-up mechanism”) [0024, “When the electrolyte leaks, the electrolyte enters the damping chamber 14 and enters the float chamber 48 through the inlet hole 46, causing the float 47 to rise. The rise of the float 47 causes the float rod 49 to rise”].
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 105070969, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an apparatus comprising a casing housing several groups of batteries [0018, “Several groups of batteries are housed inside the casing 1”]. Each group of batteries comprises a water level detection device comprising a float and a water level indicator (“shaft”) that moves within the casing based on the level of water in the batteries [Chen Figs. 1-2, 0018, “A water level detection device is provided inside each group of batteries, comprising a float 6 and a water level indicator 3. A protruding post 7 with a diameter matching that of the water level indicator 3 is provided on the top surface of the casing 1. The water level indicator 3 passes through the protruding post 7 and protrudes through water level marking segments, which are red segment 8, yellow segment 9, and green segment 10”]. Therefore, if the water were to leak from the batteries, the water level indicator would move.
Further regarding claim 3, Chen teaches that the tip of the water level indicator extends away from the casing based on the water level [0007, “the water level indicator passes through the protruding post and protrudes to the water level marking section”].
Further regarding claim 4, as described in the rejection of claim 3, Chen teaches that the tip of the water level indicator, which is part of the water level indicator, is what extends way from the casing based on the water level [Chen Figs. 1-2].
Further regarding claim 5, Chen teaches that the tip of the water level indicator as it protrudes through the casing establishes a visual indicator which can be seen from outside the casing without deconstructing the battery [0007, “The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the technical problem is: a battery for easy observation of water addition”].
Further regarding claim 6, Chen teaches that the water level indicator indicates the water level in the battery [0011, “The water level indicator segment indicates when and how much water should be added”]. If the water level of the batteries is too low, that may indicate a malfunction causing the water level to decrease, therefore the water level indicator could serve as a visual indicator of a malfunction.
Further regarding claim 7, Chen teaches that the water level indicator extends away from the casing through a red, yellow, and green segment [0018]. Chen teaches that the red segment of the water level indicator indicates that the battery needs water [0010], which may indicate a malfunction.
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 112563646) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Volz et al. (US 6,143,440, hereinafter "Volz").
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Nie teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 17, as described in the rejection of instant claims 1 and 17. Nie is silent regarding an element comprising an opening through which the shaft extends.
Volz teaches analogous art of a device comprising a battery which prevents the battery from operating in response to an unallowable operating state of the battery [column 2, lines 30-36]. Volz teaches that the battery may comprise a plunger (“shaft”) projecting into a battery cover, and a bursting element (“element”) at a short distance above the plunger [column 10, lines 58-62]. When the battery is an impermissible operating state, such as an increase in volume or escape of chemicals from the interior of the battery, the plunger is configured to move and destroy the bursting element to interrupt the battery operation [column 11, lines 7-16]. Thus, the plunger creates and expands an opening in the bursting element based on leakage of chemicals from the battery.
Both the float rod taught by Nie and the plunger and bursting element taught by Volz respond to a leakage of battery matter to interrupt the operation of the battery.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the known float rod element of Nie with the known plunger and bursting element taught by Volz, in order to obtain the predictable result of a battery that stop operating when leak battery matter [see MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 112563646) in view of Volz (US 6,143,440) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zibral et al. (US 2023/0012294, hereinafter "Zibral").
Regarding claim 14, modified Nie teaches the apparatus of claim 8, as described in the rejection of instant claim 8. Nie and Volz are silent regarding the bursting element being established at least in part by a polymer.
Zibral teaches analogous art of a battery comprising a membrane which can be punctured by an emergency venting spike in response to an increase in pressure [0013, “The venting unit is in particular provided as a pressure compensation device with integrated emergency opening for a housing of a high-voltage battery”, 0014, “The membrane is actively caused to rupture, i.e., by action of the emergency venting spike of the actor on the membrane, independent of the pressure loading”]. Zibral teaches that the membrane can be configured as a polymer film [0027].
Zibral teaches that a polymer film may not be gas-impermeable, thus ensuring the seal-tightness of the housing [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by modified Nie to have the element be established at least in part by a polymer as taught by Zibral, in order to ensure the seal-tightness of the battery housing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 112563646) in view of Volz (US 6,143,440) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 105070969).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nie teaches the apparatus of claim 18, as described in the rejection of instant claim 18. Nie and Volz are silent regarding an end portion of the shaft comprising an indicator of electrolyte leakage.
Chen teaches analogous art of an apparatus comprising a casing housing several groups of batteries [0018, “Several groups of batteries are housed inside the casing 1”]. Each group of batteries comprises a water level detection device comprising a float and a water level indicator (“shaft”) that moves within the casing based on the level of water in the batteries [Chen Figs. 1-2, 0018]. Therefore, if the water were to leak from the batteries, the water level indicator would move.
Chen teaches that the water level indicator as it protrudes through the casing establishes a visual indicator which can be seen from outside the casing without deconstructing the battery [0007, “The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the technical problem is: a battery for easy observation of water addition”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by modified Nie to modify the end portion of the float rod to include a visual indicator of the electrolyte leakage, in order to indicate the state of the battery without needing to deconstruct the battery.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 112563646).
Regarding claim 16, Nie teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. While Nie does not explicitly teach a device housing the battery, Nie describes that the battery may be used in environments with significant vibration, which would imply that the battery is being housed in a device which may be vibrating (for example, a vehicle) [0002, “During the use of batteries, some batteries are used in environments with significant vibration”]. Nie further teaches that the mechanism including the float rod may be used to prevent the battery from being used [0024]. It is well-established that batteries are intended to provide power to other devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have housed the battery of Nie in a device, in order to provide power to the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the limitation of claim 9 reciting “wherein the shaft has a first width along a first portion of the shaft and has a second width along a second portion of the shaft, the second width being larger than the first width, the element configured to expand the opening based on the leakage to permit the second portion to move within the casing to extend a component of the battery away from the casing”. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the limitation of claim 13 reciting “wherein the element is ring-shaped”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729