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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miler (US20190157636) in view of Jo (KR20230076014A, see US National Stage Entry, US20240128584, for citations)
Regarding Claim 1, Miler discloses a battery pack (battery pack with plurality of cell blocks, [004]) comprising:
A pack housing forming a plurality of areas (cell blocks fill plurality of areas, [004]);
A plurality of battery modules disposed in the plurality of areas (cell blocks form battery modules, [004]); and
A cover which is disposed abode the plurality of battery modules and on which a plurality of exhaust devices corresponding to each of the plurality of battery modules are formed (shroud-625 acts as cover, with vents-627, Fig. 6);
Miler does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is be opened or closed by the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponded battery module among the plurality of battery modules.
However, Miler discloses where the vents can be formed of various structures previously described ([0139]). Miler further discloses a vent design that utilizes a trap door structure that opens and closes based on a pressure from the exhaust gas ([0053]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Miler to have wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is be opened or closed by the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponded battery module among the plurality of battery modules.
Miler further discloses wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices comprises a rotatable door, a hinge coupled to the door ([0053]).
Miler further discloses wherein the cover comprises a plurality of module covers each corresponding to the plurality of areas, and one or more exhaust devices among the plurality of exhaust devices if formed on each of the plurality of module covers (shrouds-625 with vents-627 can be present on each battery module, [0144]).
Miler does not directly disclose wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices comprises a stopper, wherein the plurality of module covers include stopper sockets respectively engaged with the stoppers.
Jo discloses a trap door vent cap structure wherein the trap door structure includes a hinge and a moveable door structure that can be moved by a release of gas (exhaust duck-300, block portion-J acts as door, [0136], intelt-F1/F2 act as vents, Fig. 11/Fig. 12, [0136-0137]). Jo further discloses wherein the vent structure can be formed with a stopper structure where the block portion is stopped by an edge acting as a stopper (Fig. 12). Jo teaches that this structure provided improved reliability in the closing ability of the vent ([0139]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miler with the teachings of Jo to have wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices comprises a stopper, wherein the plurality of module covers include stopper sockets respectively engaged with the stoppers. His modification would yield the expected result of improved reliability in the closing ability of the vent.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 3, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above. Miler does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is opened when the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponding battery module is equal to or higher than a reference value, or wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices is closed when the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponding battery module is lower than a reference value.
However, Miler discloses where the vents can be formed of various structures previously described ([0139]). Miler further discloses a vent design that utilizes a trap door structure that opens and closes based on a pressure from the exhaust gas ([0053], [0053]). Miler further discloses wherein the trap door design is configured to have an open position and a closed position ([0053]). Miler further discloses wherein the trap door is opened when a pressure builds up in the within the cell block ([0053]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Miler to have wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is opened when the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponding battery module is equal to or higher than a reference value, or wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices is closed when the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponding battery module is lower than a reference value.
Regarding Claim 6, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above. Miler further discloses a heat insulating member disposed between each of the plurality of battery modules and each of the plurality of module covers (occluding member comprises thermal insulation, [0100]).
Regarding Claim 7 & 8, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Miler discloses a wherein the pack housing comprises a lower plate in which an inner wall and an outer wall section a plurality of areas is coupled (plate structure-114 acts as lower plate, with front panel and rear panel act as outer wall sections, lateral wall members act as inner wall sections, [0040]), and an upper plate forming an upper space of a cover (lid-840 acts as upper plate).
Miler does not directly disclose wherein the outer wall comprises a vent hole that allows communication between the upper space with an external space of the pack housing, and wherein a gas generated at one battery module among a plurality of battery modules is discharged to an external space through the upper space and the vent hole when an exhaust device located above the battery module among the plurality of exhaust devices is opened.
Miler further discloses wherein pack vents can be incorporated with the front panel and/or rear panel of the battery pack structure ([0041]). Miler further discloses wherein the battery pack exhausts the discharged matter out of the pack vent ([0073]). Miler further discloses wherein the pack vent is displaced at the end of the battery pack housing where the front or rear panel would be (pack vent-212, Fig. 2A, [0080]), where the discharged matter including the exhaust gases is pushed through the chambers to the pack vent ([0080]).
It is the examiner’s position that the pack vent structure disclosed by Miler would have a vent hole in the outer wall that allows communication between the upper space with an external space of the pack housing, where the exhaust from the battery modules is pushed through the plenum chambers to the pack vent ([0080]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Miler to have wherein the outer wall comprises a vent hole that allows communication between the upper space with an external space of the pack housing, and wherein a gas generated at one battery module among a plurality of battery modules is discharged to an external space through the upper space and the vent hole when an exhaust device located above the battery module among the plurality of exhaust devices is opened.
Regarding Claim 9, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above. Miler does not directly disclose wherein the height of than outer wall is greater than the height of the inner wall.
The examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “Height of the outer wall is greater than the height of the inner wall” can be interpreted to mean any structure where the outer wall has a greater height.
Miler discloses wherein the rear and front panels and lateral members provide structural rigidity to the battery ([0041]) and allow gas exhaust removal for the battery pack ([0080]), which are the same functions as the instant application.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Miler to have wherein the height of than outer wall is greater than the height of the inner wall.
Regarding Claim 10, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above. Miler further discloses wherein a portion of the cover is disposed between the top of the outer wall and the bottom of the upper plate (shroud-625 acting as cover is placed between the top of the outer wall and the bottom of the upper plate, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Miler in view of Jo discloses the limitations as set forth above. Miler further discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery modules comprises a plurality of battery cells stacked in one direction (each cell block acting as battery module, houses plurality of battery cells, [004], [0096], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Miler discloses a battery pack (battery pack with plurality of cell blocks, [004]) comprising:
A lower plate in which and an inner wall and an outer wall section a plurality of areas are coupled (plate structure-114 acts as lower plate, with front panel and rear panel act as outer wall sections, lateral wall members act as inner wall sections, [0040]);
A pack housing forming a plurality of areas (cell blocks fill plurality of areas, [004]);
A plurality of battery modules disposed in the plurality of areas (cell blocks form battery modules, [004]); and
An upper plate forming an upper space of the cover (lid-840 acts as upper plate).
A cover which is disposed abode the plurality of battery modules and on which a plurality of exhaust devices corresponding to each of the plurality of battery modules are formed (shroud-625 acts as cover, with vents-627, Fig. 6);
Miler does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is be opened or closed by the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponded battery module among the plurality of battery modules.
However, Miler discloses where the vents can be formed of various structures previously described ([0139]). Miler further discloses a vent design that utilizes a trap door structure that opens and closes based on a pressure from the exhaust gas ([0053], [0053]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Miler to have wherein the plurality of exhaust devices is be opened or closed by the pressure of a gas generated at a corresponded battery module among the plurality of battery modules.
Miler does not directly disclose wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices comprises a stopper, wherein the plurality of module covers include stopper sockets respectively engaged with the stoppers.
Jo discloses a trap door vent cap structure wherein the trap door structure includes a hinge and a moveable door structure that can be moved by a release of gas (exhaust duck-300, block portion-J acts as door, [0136], intelt-F1/F2 act as vents, Fig. 11/Fig. 12, [0136-0137]). Jo further discloses wherein the vent structure can be formed with a stopper structure where the block portion is stopped by an edge acting as a stopper (Fig. 12). Jo teaches that this structure provided improved reliability in the closing ability of the vent ([0139]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miler with the teachings of Jo to have wherein each of the plurality of exhaust devices comprises a stopper, wherein the plurality of module covers include stopper sockets respectively engaged with the stoppers. His modification would yield the expected result of improved reliability in the closing ability of the vent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Claims, filed March 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miler in view of Jo under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights