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 § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mocas (U.S. Patent No. 4,098,963), as evidenced by the Merriam Webster definition of “concentric”.
Regarding claim 1, Mocas teaches a pressure relief cap (vented battery cap) (Abstract) (Figures 8-9, Element 80).
The limitation “a pressure relief cap for a battery module” of the instant claim is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. Thus, the instant claim requires the pressure relief cap capable of being used in a battery module. See MPEP 2111.02, 2113. Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap used in a battery cell (Column 6, Lines 10-25), and is therefore capable of being used in a battery module.
Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap comprising a body including:
a base portion (Figures 8-9, Element 86) (Column 6, Lines 10-25) defining a first thickness, the base portion having a width transverse to the first thickness, as shown in the annotated Figure below;
PNG
media_image1.png
292
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
a first circular projection (Figures 8-9; Element 95) (part of the pair of annular upwardly projecting side wall portions) (Column 6, Lines 30-40) defining a second thickness that is lesser than the first thickness of the base portion, wherein the first circular projection extends orthogonally from the base portion as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
311
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
Mocas teaches the first circular projection having a first outer diameter smaller than the width of the base portion, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
Mocas teaches a second circular projection (Figures 8-9; Element 96) (part of the pair of annular upwardly projecting side wall portions) (Column 6, Lines 30-40) extending orthogonally from the base portion and about the first circular projection, the second circular projection having a second outer diameter that is smaller than the width of the base portion and larger than the first outer diameter of the first circular projection, as shown in the Annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
322
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
an annular channel (compartment) (Column 6, Lines 30-40) defined at least in part by the first circular projection and the second circular projection, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
338
544
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
The Merriam Webster definition of “concentric” is having a common center. Therefore, as seen in the Figure below, the second circular projection is concentric with the first circular projection and the annular channel, as they are stacked in a concentric manner such that they share a common center.
PNG
media_image6.png
316
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arranged the second circular projection to be concentric with the first circular projection, as suggested by the drawings of Mocas.
The limitation of the body “formed of a single piece of material” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Mocas discloses the body of the pressure relief cap comprising the features of the first and second circular projections, a base portion, and an annular channel as described above.
However, further, Mocas teaches the vented battery cap is a two-piece snap-fit construction including the cover member (Figure 8, Element 81) which engages with the base member (Figure 8, Element 81) (Column 6, Lines 10-15). Further, Mocas teaches the base portion of the vented battery cap formed from injection molding techniques (Column 8, Lines 1-10). Therefore, Mocas is considered by the Examiner to teach the body of the pressure relief cap formed from a single piece of material, as this structure would necessarily result from a single piece formed from injection molding as described by Mocas, or it would have been obvious to form the body of the pressure relief cap from a single piece of material, as it is obvious to the ordinary artisan to make integral components of a structure. See MPEP 2144.04 V. B.
Regarding claim 2, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 1, wherein the second circular projection defines a third thickness that is lesser than the second thickness of the first circular projection, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image7.png
295
618
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
Regarding claim 8, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 1, wherein the body is made of a thermoplastic material (Column 8, Lines 1-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocas as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Godshalk (U.S. Patent No. 3992224 A).
Regarding claim 3, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 1, wherein the first circular projection includes an outer surface having a first surface portion and a second surface portion connected to the first surface portion, wherein the first surface portion extends from the base portion up to the second surface portion and includes a straight profile, as shown in the annotated Figures below.
PNG
media_image8.png
295
848
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures of Mocas
Mocas teaches apertures (Figure 8, Element 99) provided in the first circular projection which assist in the draining of liquid (Column 6, Lines 40-50).
Mocas is silent as to the second surface portion includes a tapering profile.
However, Godshalk discloses anti-explosion, anti-flame cap for openings in storage battery casings formed by injection molding polymeric material (Abstract). Godshalk teaches the cap comprising annular side walls (Column 3, Lines 50-65), the inner surface of the side wall including a frusto-conical surface portion (Figures 1 and 3, Element 18) which is tapers so that the radial dimension of the circular outer edge of the side wall is relatively small (Column 4, Lines 15-25). Godshalk teaches the tapered structure is important to prevent the collection of liquid in the cap (Column 6, Lines 50-65). The ordinary artisan would also recognize that such a tapers structure would minimize the size of the first circular projection, and thus reduce the overall weight of the battery cap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second surface of the first circular projection of Mocas to incorporate the teachings of Godshalk in which the annular projection includes a tapered surface. Doing so would advantageously prevent liquid accumulation in the pressure relief cap, as recognized by Godshalk. The advantage of the tapered structure on the annular side wall of Godshalk overlaps with the teachings of Mocas directed toward the prevention of liquid accumulation in the pressure relief cap, which further supports the aforementioned modification.
Regarding claim 4, Mocas teaches pressure relief cap of claim 3.
The limitations of:
“the body of the pressure relief cap is adapted to be coupled with a base plate of the battery module”
defines the pressure relief cap by it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Mocas teaches features of the structure of the pressure relief cap which overlap with those of the instant claim. Since Mocas teaches the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, notably of the body of the pressure relief cap, the pressure relief cap of Mocas would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
The limitations of the
“wherein the base plate includes a through-opening and an inner surface facing the through-opening, wherein, when the body is coupled with the base plate, the through-opening of the base plate is adapted to receive the first circular projection of the body therein, and wherein, when the body is coupled with the base plate, the inner surface of the base plate is adapted to engage with the first surface portion of the first circular projection.”
appear to be related to features of a battery module having a base plate, however the instant claims are drawn to a pressure relief cap and thus the structural limitations of a base plate of a battery module are not germane to the structure of the pressure relief cap and therefore not required by the instant claim. As described above, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap including a body having a first circular projection including a first surface portion which reads on the structural limitations required by the claims and therefore is expected to be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 4.
The limitation of “the first circular projection is adapted to be coupled with the base plate via a friction fit” defines the pressure relief cap by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Mocas teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, particularly the first circular projection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 4.
The limitation of “the second circular projection is adapted to be coupled with the base plate via an interference fit.” defines the pressure relief cap by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Mocas teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, particularly the second circular projection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 4.
The limitations of the
“wherein the base plate has a circular groove, and wherein, when the body is coupled with the base plate, the circular groove is adapted to receive the second circular projection of the body therein..”
appear to be related to features of a battery module having a base plate, however the instant claims are drawn to a pressure relief cap and thus the structural limitations of a base plate of a battery module are not germane to the structure of the pressure relief cap and therefore not required by the instant claim. As described above, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap including a body having a second circular projection which reads on the structural limitations required by the independent claim and therefore is expected to be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Claims 5-6 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocas in view of Godshalk as applied to claims 3-7 above, and further in view of Zukor (previously cited, U.S. Patent No. 7357709 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 4.
In the event that the structure of the pressure relief cap of Mocas is not found to have the necessary structure to be adapted to be coupled with the base plate via a friction fit, an alternate rejection of Mocas in view of Zukor is presented below.
Zukor discloses vents useful in a variety of applications, including electrical component housings in order to equalize pressure between the housing interior and the surrounding environment (Column , Lines 5-10). Zukor teaches an embodiment of the invention including a housing, a port in the housing, and a vent disposed over the port (Column 2, Lines 10-15). Zukor teaches the vent includes a body and shell, which are assembled using only an interference fit (Column 2, Lines 60-67), which provides a rugged and durable vent that avoids the use of sealants and adhesives, which may degrade over time (Column 3, Lines 1-3). Zukor teaches that in the method of securing the interference fit, a friction fitting may be used (Column 5, Lines 5-10). Zukor solves a similar problem as the claimed invention, namely relieving pressure in a housing via a vent installed in an opening of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first circular projection of Mocas to incorporate the teachings of Zukor in which the first circular projection is adapted to be coupled with the base plate via an interference fit, specifically a friction fit. Doing so would advantageously result in a rugged and durable pressure relief cap that avoids the use of sealants and adhesives to secure the first circular projection to the base plate, which may degrade overtime, as recognized by Zukor.
Regarding claim 6, Mocas teaches the pressure relief cap of claim 4.
In the event that the structure of the pressure relief cap of Mocas is not found to have the necessary structure to be adapted to be coupled with the base plate via an interference fit, an alternate rejection of Mocas in view of Zukor is presented below.
As discussed above, Zukor discloses vents useful in a variety of applications, including electrical component housings in order to equalize pressure between the housing interior and the surrounding environment (Column , Lines 5-10). Zukor teaches the vent included in the housing including a body and shell, which are assembled using only an interference fit (Column 2, Lines 60-67), which provides a rugged and durable vent that avoids the use of sealants and adhesives, which may degrade over time (Column 3, Lines 1-3). Zukor solves a similar problem as the claimed invention, namely relieving pressure in a housing via a vent installed in an opening of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second circular projection of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Zukor in which the second circular projection is adapted to be coupled with the base plate via an interference fit. Doing so would advantageously result in a rugged and durable pressure relief cap that avoids the use of sealants and adhesives to secure the second circular projection to the base plate, which may degrade overtime, as recognized by Zukor.
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire (U.S. Patent No. 10312490 B2), further in view of Mocas (cited above).
Regarding claim 9, Maguire teaches a battery module (Paragraph 0004), comprising a housing (enclosure) including:
a first end plate defining a first end of the battery module;
a second end plate defining a second end of the battery module opposite the first end;
a first side plate coupled to the first end plate and the second end plate; and
a second side plate opposite to the first side plate, the second side plate being coupled to the first end plate and the second end plate;
a plurality of battery cells (Figure 2, Element 56) secured within the housing (Paragraph 0047) between the first end plate, the second end plate, the first side plate, and the second side plate, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
551
860
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Maguire
Maguire further teaches a cover (Figure 3, Element 64) surrounding the plurality of battery cells (Paragraph 0051). Maguire teaches the cover attached to the tray in order to cover the battery assemblies within the enclosure, attached in any known battery (Paragraph 0051). Further, in the disclosure, Maguire teaches the design of the invention to prevent the ingress of environmental fluids into the enclosure. Therefore, Maguire either teaches the cover forming a first substantially fluid-tight seal with the first end plate and a second substantially fluid-tight seal with the second end plate or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to have the cover form a first substantially fluid-tight seal with the first end plate and a second substantially fluid-tight seal with the second end plate in order to prevent the ingress of environmental fluids into the enclosure, as recognized by Maguire.
Maguire teaches a venting system included in the battery pack in order to discharge the battery vent byproducts from the interior of the pack to a location external to the battery pack (Paragraph 0053). Maguire teaches the vent device (Figures 2 and 4, Element 72) mounted outside of the enclosure, such as to the wall of the battery pack (Paragraph 0055). Maguire teaches the outlet (Figure 4, Element 88) of the venting device may be positioned at any location suitable to communication the battery vent byproducts to the atmosphere (Paragraph 0059).
The outlet of the venting device of Maguire is considered to be a base plate having a through-opening and an inner surface facing the through-opening, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image10.png
588
902
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Maguire
Maguire is silent as to the base plate is coupled to the first end plate. However, as described above, Maguire teaches the venting device may be suitably positioned at any location, particularly mounted on the outside of any portion of the enclosure, in order to vent byproducts to the atmosphere. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to couple the base plate (outlet of the venting device) to the first end plate in order to establish close proximity between the location where gases are released and the location where they are stored in the enclosure (taught by Maguire to be the vent chambers; Figure 3, Element 68) (Paragraph 0053). The mere rearrangement of parts including the base plate, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
In an embodiment, Maguire teaches the vent device embodied by a two-piece design including a vent tube and cap (Paragraph 0062). Maguire teaches the vent tube fluidly connected at one end to a vent chamber of the battery pack (Paragraph 0061).
Thus, as the tube and cap embodiment of Maguire is taught to be a suitable embodiment of the venting device of Maguire, Maguire is considered to teach a pressure relief cap in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Further, in the disclosure, Maguire teaches the design of the invention to prevent the ingress of environmental fluids into the enclosure. Therefore, Maguire either teaches the pressure relief cap forming a third substantially fluid-tight seal with the first end plate or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the pressure relief cap forming a third substantially fluid-tight seal with the first end plate in order to prevent the ingress of environmental fluids into the enclosure, as recognized by Maguire.
The ordinary artisan would recognize that when mounting the venting device exemplified in Figure 5A onto the wall of the enclosure, the pressure relief cap would be coupled to the base plate (the outlet of the venting device, as described above) or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to do so in order to securely attach the pressure relief cap to the venting tube and prevent ingress of external fluids into the battery case.
Further, Maguire teaches the pressure relief cap (Figure 5A, Element 92) is adapted to disengage from the base plate upon an internal pressure within the battery module exceeding a pressure threshold (Figure 5B, Paragraph 0062).
Maguire is silent as to the pressure relief cap comprising a body formed of a single piece of material, the body including:
a base portion defining a first thickness, the base portion having a width transverse to the first thickness;
a first circular projection defining a second thickness that is lesser than the first thickness of the base portion, wherein the first circular projection extends orthogonally from the base portion, the first circular projection having a first outer diameter that is smaller than the width of the base portion;
a second circular projection extending orthogonally from the base portion and about the first circular projection, the second circular projection having a second outer diameter that is smaller than the width of the base portion and larger than the first outer diameter of the first circular projection; and
an annular channel defined at least in part by the first circular projection and the second circular projection,
wherein the second circular projection, the first circular projection, and the annular channel are concentric.
However, as described above, Mocas discloses a pressure relief cap for a storage battery which provides improved dispersion of egressing battery gas (Column 1, Lines 5-10). Mocas teaches a two-piece snap together construction of a pressure relief cap which is easier to assembly, less costly to manufacture, and provides improved dispersion for escaping battery gas and thus better protection against damaging combustion (Column 1, Lines 50-60). Mocas teaches the aforementioned cap applied to a single battery cell and embodiment where the aforementioned cap is applied to multiple cells to vent gas (Column 6, Lines 1-30).
Further, as discussed above, Maguire teaches the venting device mounted on the outside of a housing of a battery pack enclosing a plurality of battery cells. However, Maguire also teaches each individual battery cell including one or more vents to expel byproducts from battery cells during certain cell events, including over-temperature and over-charging conditions (Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the venting device on the exterior of the enclosure of Maguire to incorporate the pressure relief cap of Mocas as exemplified in Figures 8 and 9. Mocas and Maguire are open to such a combination, as the prior art teaches vents required in both individual battery cells and battery packs to prevent the buildup of gas. Doing so would have been obvious to try, as the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements that a person of ordinary skill in the art would perform with no inventive effort required. Furthermore, the resulting pressure relief cap would yield predictable results in venting gases from a battery back. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Additionally, as taught by Mocas, the resulting pressure relief cap implemented in the battery pack of Maguire would possess the advantages of easy assembly, reduced cost of manufacture, and improved dispersion for escaping battery gas and thus better protection against damaging combustion.
The following limitations of claim 9 are shared by claim 1 and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Mocas teaches a body formed of a single piece of material, the body including:
a base portion defining a first thickness, the base portion having a width transverse to the first thickness;
a first circular projection defining a second thickness that is lesser than the first thickness of the base portion, wherein the first circular projection extends orthogonally from the base portion, the first circular projection having a first outer diameter that is smaller than the width of the base portion;
a second circular projection extending orthogonally from the base portion and about the first circular projection, the second circular projection having a second outer diameter that is smaller than the width of the base portion and larger than the first outer diameter of the first circular projection; and
an annular channel defined at least in part by the first circular projection and the second circular projection,
wherein the second circular projection, the first circular projection, and the annular channel are concentric.
Therefore, in the modification of Maguire to incorporate the pressure relief cap of Mocas, the aforementioned claimed limitations pertaining to structural features of the pressure relief cap would be met.
Further, it is noted by the Examiner that the limitation of “the pressure relief cap is adapted to disengage from the base plate upon an internal pressure within the battery module exceeding a pressure threshold” is a functional limitation definition the pressure relief cap by what it does, rather than what it is. See MPEP 2173.05 (g). The pressure relief cap of Maguire in view of Mocas teaches the claimed structure of the pressure relief cap and the base plate and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 10, modified Maguire teaches the battery module of claim 9.
The following limitations of claim 10 are shared by claim 2 and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 2, Mocas teaches the second circular projection defines a third thickness that is lesser than the second thickness of the first circular projection.
Therefore, in the modification of Maguire to incorporate the pressure relief cap of Mocas, the aforementioned claimed limitations pertaining to structural features of the pressure relief cap would be met.
Regarding claim 16, modified Maguire teaches the battery module of claim 9.
The following limitations of claim 16 are shared by claim 8 and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, Mocas teaches the body of the pressure relief cap is made of a thermoplastic material.
Therefore, in the modification of Maguire to incorporate the pressure relief cap of Mocas, the aforementioned claimed limitations pertaining to features of the pressure relief cap would be met.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire in view of Mocas as applied to claims 9-10 and 16 above, and further in view of Godshalk (previously cited, U.S. Patent No. 3992224 A).
Regarding claim 11, Maguire teaches the battery module of claim 9.
The following limitations of claim 11 are shared by claim 3 and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3: the first circular projection includes an outer surface having a first surface portion and a second surface portion connected to the first surface portion, wherein the first surface portion extends from the base portion up to the second surface portion and includes a straight profile.
Therefore, in the modification of Maguire to incorporate the pressure relief cap of Mocas, the aforementioned claimed limitations pertaining to structural features of the pressure relief cap would be met.
Maguire is silent as to the second surface portion includes a tapering profile.
Maguire teaches apertures (Figure 8, Element 99) provided in the first circular projection which assist in the draining of liquid (Column 6, Lines 40-50).
However, Godshalk discloses anti-explosion, anti-flame cap for openings in storage battery casings formed by injection molding polymeric material (Abstract). Godshalk teaches the cap comprising annular side walls (Column 3, Lines 50-65), the inner surface of the side wall including a frusto-conical surface portion (Figures 1 and 3, Element 18) which is tapers so that the radial dimension of the circular outer edge of the side wall is relatively small (Column 4, Lines 15-25). Godshalk teaches the tapered structure is important to prevent the collection of liquid in the cap (Column 6, Lines 50-65). The ordinary artisan would also recognize that such a tapers structure would minimize the size of the first circular projection, and thus reduce the overall weight of the battery cap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second surface of the first circular projection of the pressure relief cap of Maguire in view of Mocas to incorporate the teachings of Godshalk in which the annular projection includes a tapered surface. Doing so would advantageously prevent liquid accumulation in the pressure relief cap, as recognized by Godshalk. The advantage of the tapered structure on the annular side wall of Godshalk overlaps with the teachings of Mocas directed toward the preventing of liquid accumulation in the pressure relief cap, which further supports the aforementioned modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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.
Regarding claims 12-15, the pressure relief cap of the prior art of Mocas which was implemented into the battery module of Maguire is taught to have the first and second circular projections facing outward, or to the exterior environment of the battery. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to engage any portion of the base plate with the first and second circular projections of the pressure relief cap, as this would require reorienting the cap taught by Mocas so that the first and second circular projections are facing the interior of the battery in order to vent gas. Thus, the claimed limitations of claims 12-15 directed toward the interaction between the pressure relief cap and the base plate via the projections of the cap would not have been obvious, in combination with all of the other instant claimed features.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights