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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
Claims 11-13 have been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on October 21st, 2025 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of July 28th, 2025
The Applicant’s request that the double patenting rejection of claim 3 be held in abeyance is respectfully denied because the rejection must be withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1-6 and 10 over Seto (WO 2012/133710 A1) are maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 7 over Seto in view of Honda (US 2021/0013471 A1) is maintained.
The 103 rejections of claims 8 and 9 over Seto are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 19th, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office Action on July 28th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seto (WO 2012/133710 A1). The goal of Seto’s invention is to have a compartment of batteries with a system that allows batteries to vent undesired gas from their casings to the atmosphere through a duct common to all of the batteries in the large case [0006]. A potential issue with using a common duct is that gas from one malfunctioning battery could flow into a duct and then flow through the venting valve of a normally functioning battery, causing issues [0005]. Seto has designed a valve system that prevents that from happening; it is best depicted in Fig. 2.
There are multiple battery racks (2) that are comprised of several individual battery modules (1) comprised of an electrode stack and an external metal casing. There is a first discharge valve 11 (not depicted here, but is between the outer casing of the battery module and a gas discharge port 12, [0008]). Once the pressure inside the battery casing reaches a certain point, the first discharge valve opens and gas flows through the gas discharge port 12 into a hollow exhaust duct 6 [00023]. Each battery rack (2) has an exhaust duct (6) that all of its battery modules share (Fig. 2). Gas flows from said duct and is stopped at a second discharge valve 8 until enough pressure builds up to open said second discharge valve [00012]. Once opened, gas flows through that valve and is then vented to the atmosphere through a connecting duct 7. The second discharge valves (8) are configured to close once the gaseous pressure drops beneath a certain value [00012], ensuring that the valves are not continuously open and either leaking/receiving gas to/from another battery rack (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10, Seto teaches an energy storage system comprising a compartment body (30, see the dashed lines in Fig. 1 below) and a battery box comprising a box body (the “outer can” of [0008]) and a battery module (Fig. 2, 1). Seto continues to teach an exhaust device with an intake end (discharge valve 11) that communicates with the inside of the “outer can” [0008].
Seto also teaches an exhaust end (present in discharge valve 8) that communicates with the outside of the compartment body through the connecting duct 7 [0008], both of which are depicted in Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
815
922
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The exhaust device further comprises a pipe body (Fig. 2, hollow exhaust duct 6 and the discharge valve 8) and an explosion-proof assembly. The assembly comprises an inner explosion proof valve (gas discharge valve 11) which has the intake end and an outer explosion proof valve (Fig. 2, gas discharge valve 8) that has the exhaust end. Both valves are independent structures (as required by claim 4) which are at two ends of the hollow exhaust duct. Please see the annotated figure below that more clearly depicts the claimed pipe body; the part of the duct that contains the valve (8) is part of the pipe body.
PNG
media_image3.png
815
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, as seen in the more detailed depiction of the valve 8 below, the valve does not extend out of the pipe body. The pipe body ends where the central duct (7) begins, and that beginning is further beyond the element (45). Therefore, the outer explosion-proof valve is contained completely within the pipe body.
PNG
media_image4.png
742
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Seto teaches in paragraph [00034] that the top plate 20 (as seen in Fig. 1 above; it also continues underneath the circuit board 17 as mentioned in [00046]) that is between the box body and the compartment is made of insulating plastic (a thermal insulation layer, as required by claim 6). More specifically, in light of both Figures 1 and 2, this thermal insulation layer covers and insulates the hollow exhaust duct 6. Therefore, when the intake end and exhaust end are disconnected from each other, the hollow exhaust duct 6 acts a thermal insulation space enabling thermal insulation with gas enclosed in the thermal insulation space, as required by claim 5.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto (WO 2012/133710 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Honda (US 2021/0013471 A1). Seto teaches the limitations required by claim 6, but does not specifically teach that the thermal insulation layer comprises a stone wool thermal layer. However, Honda teaches that rock wool, which is another name for stone wool, may be used as a thermal insulation material ([0060] – [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to change the thermal insulation layer 20 of Seto to stone wool, because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto (WO 2012/133710 A1). The communication port on the box body that allows communication between the inside of the box body and the compartment body is the discharge port (12) seen in Fig. 2, and the communication port in the compartment body that allows communication between the inner and outer parts of the compartment body is located in the second discharge valve (8), also in Figure 2. Seto teaches the usage of an O-ring to ensure that gas flows through the ports without leaking [00060]. Seto does not specifically teach the O-ring being arranged on an outer side of the box body and surrounding the communication port (as required by claim 8) and does not specifically teach the O-ring being compressed between the exhaust device and inner wall of the communication port 12 (as required by claim 9). However, it would be an obvious modification to duplicate the elastic sealing rings and install them at various places throughout the device (including the communication ports above) to ensure that the hot, toxic gas does not leak out of the pipes. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Cho (US 2005/0277017 A1). Seto fails to teach an energy storage prefabricated compartment wherein the structures of the inner and outer explosion proof valves are the same Cho is analogous art to Seto because both teach the usage of safety valves in secondary batteries. Cho teaches a multiple safety valve system through which “gas inside the battery can pass before it is emitted out of the battery” [0015]. Each safety valve may include at least two inner pressure plates the open at a predetermined pressure as the inner pressure of the battery increases [0016]. This is different than Seto’s system. Using this alternative system “improves the cycle-life of a battery by lowering the inner pressure in multiple stages before finally releasing gas out of the battery”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Cho’s multiple safety valve system (in this case, multiple valves may correspond to two valves) for Seto’s gas discharge valve in order to improve the cycle-life of the battery. See MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
However, in order to satisfy the claimed limitations recited in claim 11, a new interpretation of the explosion inner explosion-proof valve and the outer explosion-proof valve must be established. A first valve that is closest to the battery boxes may be interpreted as the first explosion-proof valve, and a second valve that is closest to the central exhaust duct 7 may be interpreted as the second explosion-proof valve. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein a structure of the inner explosion-proof valve is same as structure of the outer explosion-proof valve” contained within claims 11 and 13 is satisfied.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto and further in view of Cho. The rejection rationale of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 covers all of the limitations recited in claim 12 except the limitation where “…the pipe body, the inner explosion-proof valve, and the outer explosion-proof valve being coaxially arranged…”. As a result, that rationale will not be repeated here. Seto alone fails to teach this coaxially arrangement. However, in order to successfully substitute Cho’s system for Seto’s gas discharge valve 8, the pipe body, the inner explosion-proof valve, and the outer explosion-proof valve must be coaxially arranged in order for the gas to pass through the valves successfully. As mentioned above, claim 13 requires that the valves must have an identical structure; Cho’s system may include valves that have the same structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that since the gas discharge valve 8, interpreted as the outer-explosion valve, is beyond the hollow exhaust duct 6 (previously interpreted as the claimed pipe body), the newly amended limitation that requires the outer-explosion valve to be within the pipe body overcomes the previous rejection. The Examiner agrees. However, since the outer explosion valve is linearly aligned with the hollow exhaust duct and is not a part of the central exhaust valve (7), the claimed pipe body can be reasonably interpreted to comprise the combination of the hollow exhaust duct and the outer explosion valve. This interpretation reads on the claimed limitations and therefore the 102 and 103 rejections over Seto are maintained.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/RYAN K. BLACKWELL-RUDASILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722