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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 10, 17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species embodiments drawn to the embodiments depicted in Figs. 5, 7, 8, and 9, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species embodiment drawn to Fig. 6, claims 1-7, 11-16, 18 and 20 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Okabayashi discloses a battery cell case (See Figs. 1-5, battery pack contains battery cell 12 [0006][0015]) an internal chamber (portion which houses batteries) and an external environment (outside of internal chamber) the battery cell case comprising at least one aperture (13, see Fig. 1) configured to provide a gas path between the internal chamber and an external environment; and
a reversible, multiple-use valve assembly (See Fig. 2, 10) mounted to the battery cell case (12) and configured to selectively open a fluid flow through the at least one aperture to relieve a gas pressure within the internal chamber exceeding a predetermined pressure threshold ([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi discloses wherein the valve assembly (see Fig. 2 and 3) includes at least one cantilever arm (32 [0019]) pivotably (29, [0018]-[0020]) mounted to the battery cell case.
Regarding claim 13, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi includes wherein each cantilever arm is an elastic
element constructed from a rigid material (formed from a material which can form a spring which inherently includes a material with rigid properties, see Fig. 1, 31 and 32 formed as one element and [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi wherein the valve assembly additionally includes a valve tip (44) connected to each cantilever arm (32-connected to 22 and 44/45) and configured to selectively open and close the respective aperture ([0020][0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1) in view of Brisbane (US 20160308344 A1).
Regarding claims 1, Okabayashi discloses a battery cell/a battery cell case comprising (See Figs. 1-5, battery pack contains battery cell [0006][0015]):
a cathode element (positive electrode [0015]) and an anode element (negative electrode [0015]);
a battery cell case (12 [0015]) and defining an internal chamber (portion which houses batteries) and an external environment (outside of internal chamber) configured to house each of the cathode element, the anode element, wherein the battery cell case defines at least one aperture (13, see Fig. 1) configured to provide a gas path between the internal chamber and an external environment; and
a reversible, multiple-use valve assembly (See Fig. 2, 10) mounted to the battery cell case (12) and configured to selectively open a fluid flow through the at least one aperture to relieve a gas pressure within the internal chamber exceeding a predetermined pressure threshold ([0016]).
However, Okabayashi does not disclose an electrolyte disposed in contact with each of the cathode and anode elements and that the battery cell case is constructed from a rigid material.
Brisbane discloses a battery pack (see Fig. 2A and 2B, 10) which includes batteries which have an anode (anodes [0026]), cathode (cathodes [0026]) and electrolyte (electrolyte between and separating anodes and cathodes) in contact with each of the cathode and anode elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the batteries of Okabayashi by using the batteries as disclosed by Brisbane because Brisbane discloses that these types of batteries can be incorporated into battery packs and the selection of a known battery would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the pack casing of Okabayashi to be formed from a rigid material because it will protect the batteries within the pack and furthermore be able to withstand environmental conditions and mechanical forces from being mounted in a vehicle ([0002]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi discloses wherein the valve assembly (see Fig. 2 and 3) includes at least one cantilever arm (32 [0019]) pivotably (29, [0018]-[0020]) mounted to the battery cell case.
Regarding claim 3, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi includes wherein each cantilever arm is an elastic
element constructed from a rigid material (formed from a material which can form a spring which inherently includes a material with rigid properties, see Fig. 1, 31 and 32 formed as one element and [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Okabayashi wherein the valve assembly additionally includes a valve tip (44) connected to each cantilever arm (32-connected to 22 and 44/45) and configured to selectively open and close the respective aperture ([0020][0028]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1) in view of Brisbane (US 20160308344 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above and in further view of Nakayama (US 2005/0039806 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okabayashi does not disclose wherein the valve assembly tip is formed of a rubber resistant to electrolyte.
Nakayama discloses a pressure relief valve member (30, see Fig. 4) wherein the sealing member (32, see Fig. 4) is formed of butyl rubber to increase electrolyte resistance ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the valve assembly tip sealing structure of modified Okabayashi with a rubber as disclosed by Nakayama because it will increase the valve resistance against electrolyte damage.
With regards to the property of “a material configured to withstand temperatures up to 200 degrees Celsius”, modified Okabayashi discloses the instantly claimed material for the valve tip when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1) in view of Brisbane (US 20160308344 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above and in further view of Pfeiffer (DE 102021123420 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okabayashi does not disclose what material the spring element is formed of spring steel.
Pfeiffer discloses that a spring element is formed of steel spring (pg. 3-5, spring mechanism, end of pg. 4, and pg. 8, element 45 in Fig. 20 and 4 in Fig. 9, second to last paragraph and spring steel see pg. 3, paragraph 7) is used to open a pressure relief valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing to modify the spring element of Okabayashi by forming the spring element out of spring steel as disclosed by Pfeiffer because it allows one to adjust the pressure that the spring element applies to the valve.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above and in further view of Nakayama (US 2005/0039806 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okabayashi does not disclose wherein the valve assembly tip is formed of a rubber resistant to electrolyte.
Nakayama discloses a pressure relief valve member (30, see Fig. 4) wherein the sealing member (32, see Fig. 4) is formed of butyl rubber to increase electrolyte resistance ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the valve assembly tip sealing structure of modified Okabayashi with a rubber as disclosed by Nakayama because it will increase the valve resistance against electrolyte damage.
With regards to the property of “a material configured to withstand temperatures up to 200 degrees Celsius”, modified Okabayashi discloses the instantly claimed material for the valve tip when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1) as applied to claims 11-13 and 15 above and in further view of Pfeiffer (DE 102021123420 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Okabayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okabayashi does not disclose what material the spring element is formed of spring steel.
Pfeiffer discloses that a spring element is formed of steel spring (pg. 3-5, spring mechanism, end of pg. 4, and pg. 8, element 45 in Fig. 20 and 4 in Fig. 9, second to last paragraph and spring steel see pg. 3, paragraph 7) is used to open a pressure relief valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing to modify the spring element of Okabayashi by forming the spring element out of spring steel as disclosed by Pfeiffer because it allows one to adjust the pressure that the spring element applies to the valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
Claim 20 is allowed and the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The closest prior art of record includes Okabayashi (US 2022/0223970 A1). Okabayashi discloses a battery pack (12) with an aperture (13) between the internal and external environment, wherein the aperture is sealed with a pressure relief valve (10) and the pressure relief valve has a cantilever arm (32 [0019]) that is pivotable mounted and has a pressure relief valve at one end ([0015]-[0018]). Okabayashi does not disclose that the cantilever arm has a pivot point which is adjustable. No teaching, suggestion, or motivation can be to modify Okabayashi to have the entirety of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726