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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 4/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “internal bore” in line 2 of claim 3 should be changed to the phrase “an internal bore”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al (US 9,508,970 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a traction battery pack (rechargeable battery; Fig 1 #110; col. 2, lines 19-20) comprising: an enclosure assembly (enclosure; col. 6, lines 16-21); and a pressure equalization device received within a wall of the enclosure assembly (burst disc assembly mounted to end of partial enclosure; col. 6, lines 16-21), the pressure equalization device includes a housing assembly (pressure disc retainer and enclosure fitting; Fig. 8 #804 and #806; col. 6, lines 22-36) and a flow restrictor (burst disc element; Fig. 8 #802; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Since the burst disc element of Jones is a disc having an opening, which is the same as Applicant’s shape for the flow restrictor as claimed in claim 2, the burst disc element would inherently be configured to restrict flow through the housing assembly during a battery thermal event of the traction battery pack.
Regarding claim 2, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the flow restrictor being a disk having an opening (burst disc element; Fig. 8 #802; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Regarding claim 3, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 2 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the pressure equalization device including an internal bore extending from an inlet to an outlet (inlet opening of pressure disc retainer #804 in Fig. 8B; col. 6, lines 22-36) and the opening having a diameter that is less than a diameter of the internal bore (opening of burst disc element is less than the diameter of the inlet opening of pressure disc retainer #804 in Fig. 8B; col. 6, lines 22-36)
Regarding claim 4, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the flow restrictor is disposed outside the enclosure assembly (burst disc element #802 is disposed on outside of enclosure in Fig. 8B; col. 6, lines 22-36)
Regarding claim 5, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the flow restrictor is configured to restrict flow though through the pressure equalization device (burst disc element; Fig. 8 #802; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Since the burst disc element of Jones is a disc having an opening, which is the same as Applicant’s shape for the flow restrictor as claimed in claim 2, the burst disc element would inherently be configured to restrict flow though through the pressure equalization device from 78 to 88 percent.
Regarding claim 6, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the housing assembly includes an engagement section that interfaces with a wall of the enclosure assembly (enclosure fitting; Fig. 8 #806; col. 6, lines 22-36) and an outer section that protrudes outwardly of the wall assembly (pressure disc retainer; Fig. 8 #804; col. 6, lines 22-36), the engagement section providing an inlet to the housing assembly (enclosure fitting; Fig. 8 #806; col. 6, lines 22-36), the outer section providing an outlet from the housing assembly (pressure disc retainer; Fig. 8 #804; col. 6, lines 22-36) and the flow restrictor configured to restrict the flow between the inlet and the outlet (burst disc element; Fig. 8 #802; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Regarding claim 11, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the flow restrictor is sandwiched between the engagement section and the outer section (burst disc element is between the enclosure fitting #806 and pressure disc retainer #804 in Fig. 8B; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Regarding claim 12, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the engagement section secured to the outer section with a crimp fit (sealing ring #808 sealing burst disc element and enclosure fitting attached in Fig. 8; col. 6, lines 22-36).
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.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 9,508,970 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising a wall being part of an enclosure tray of the enclosure (enclosure tray #420 is a wall of the enclosure with the burst disc assembly mounted thereon
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack comprising the housing assembly having a dome shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the housing assembly to have a dome shape because doing so provides an outer surface of the pressure equalization device with a more rounded shape.
Claims 7-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 9,508,970 B2) in view of Reitzle et al (US 2012/0312161 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above.
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack further comprising a membrane held within the housing assembly and covering the outlet.
However, Reitzle discloses a device further comprising a membrane held within the housing assembly and covering the outlet (second selectively permeable membrane as an outlet; paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the traction battery pack of Jones to include the second selectively permeable membrane as an outlet for the burst disc assembly of Jones because doing so provides membranes that acts as filters permeable for gases in one direction (paragraph [0014] of Reitzle).
Regarding claim 8, Jones and Reitzle disclose the traction battery pack of claim 7 as noted above and Jones discloses the traction battery pack comprising the flow restrictor is configured to restrict flow to be less that an amount of flow that is possible through the outlet covered by the membrane (burst disc element; Fig. 8 #802; col. 6, lines 22-36).
Since the burst disc element of Jones is a disc having an opening, which is the same as Applicant’s shape for the flow restrictor as claimed in claim 2, the burst disc element would inherently be configured to restrict flow to be less that an amount of flow that is possible through the outlet covered by the membrane.
Regarding claim 9, Jones and Reitzle disclose the traction battery pack of claim 7 as noted above.
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack comprising the membrane being a water-impermeable membrane held within the housing assembly.
However, Reitzle discloses a device comprising the membrane being a water-impermeable membrane held within the housing assembly (second selectively permeable membrane being impermeable to liquids; paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the traction battery pack of Jones to include the second selectively permeable membrane as an outlet for the burst disc assembly of Jones because doing so provides membranes that acts as filters permeable for gases in one direction (paragraph [0014] of Reitzle).
Regarding claim 10, Jones and Reitzle disclose the traction battery pack of claim as noted above.
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack comprising the water-impermeable membrane being configured to allow flow to exit the pressure equalization device.
However, Reitzle discloses a device comprising the water-impermeable membrane being configured to allow flow to exit the pressure equalization device (second selectively permeable membrane being impermeable to liquids and permeable to gases; paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the traction battery pack of Jones to include the second selectively permeable membrane as an outlet for the burst disc assembly of Jones because doing so provides membranes that acts as filters permeable for gases in one direction (paragraph [0014] of Reitzle).
Regarding claim 15, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above.
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack comprising a plurality of battery arrays housed inside the enclosure assembly.
However, Reitzle discloses a device comprising a plurality of battery arrays housed inside the enclosure assembly (housing batteries assembled from battery cells; paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the traction battery pack of Jones to substitute the battery cell of Jones for the batteries assembled from battery cells of Reitzle because having the required batteries supplies the required characteristic voltage (paragraph [0002] of Reitzle).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 9,508,970 B2) in view of Ploppa et al (WO 2023/030765 A1).
Ploppa et al (US 2024/0186650 A1) is being used as the English translation for Ploppa et al (WO 2023/030765 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jones discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 as noted above.
Jones does not disclose the traction battery pack comprising the engagement section mounted to the wall with a twist-lock.
However, Ploppa discloses a battery housing comprising the engagement section mounted to the wall with a twist-lock (first and second bayonet connections having a securing wall extending in a circumferential direction; paragraph [0132])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the traction battery pack of Jones to include the first and second bayonet connections having a securing wall extending in a circumferential direction of Ploppa for the enclosure fitting of Jones because having the required securing wall secures the membrane connector to the main body (paragraph [0129] of Ploppa).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights