CTNF 18/359,347 CTNF 95657 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Sub-species A1i, A2i, and A3ii ( claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-16, and 19-20 ) in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 7, 10-12, and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and sub-species defined in the 03/23/2026 restriction/election requirement , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a potting" should most likely read "a potting material " . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of "the housing includes a bottom shear plate and an upper shear plate" is repeated from claim 19 upon which claim 20 depends . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the channel system " in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 13-16 are similarly rejected for depending on claim 1.) Claim 6 recites the limitation "the battery cell engagement panels." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the battery cell engagement panels" and "the tray panel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. Claims 16 recites “a potting material”, but it is unclear whether this is intended to be the same or different than “a potting” introduced within claim 15 upon which claim 16 depends. Claims 20 recites “a potting”, but it is unclear whether this is intended to be the same or different than “a potting material” introduced within claim 19 upon which claim 20 depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1, with foreign priority effective filing date of 10/18/2022 ) . Regarding claim 1, Georgiadis teaches a battery pack for a vehicle (battery cell arrangement for use in an aircraft, abstract and Fig. 8), comprising: a housing including at least one pack vent between an interior and an exterior of the housing (container 8 has a vent port or vent valve 8b in a side wall 8a, through which excess pressure can escape from the container 8; [0091] and Fig. 8); a plurality of battery cells disposed within the housing (groups of battery cells 2 arranged within a larger pressure-resistant container 8, [0091] and Fig. 8); and a channel tray (housing 3 with cover 3b, Figs. 1-3 and 8) including channel arrays (vent channels 5, [0083-0084] and Figs. 1-3) having a plurality of vent openings (circular openings 5a in housing cover 3b, [0083-0084] and Figs. 1-3) each positioned in connection with a vent on each of the plurality of battery cells (vent channels 5 are designed and intended to discharge the gaseous products GP escaping from the venting valve of a given battery cell 2, [0081] and Figs. 1 and 8; venting area of the cells is an area around the positive pole of the cell for cylindrical cells – battery cells 2 have a degassing valve in the area of said positive pole 2a, [0057, 0079] and 2a in Fig. 1) and the channel arrays are in connection with the at least one vent of the housing (through free air volume 9 in container 8, [0091]; and see flow arrows P connected from GP and through 8b in Fig. 8), wherein the channel system is enclosed from the rest of the volume of the pack (vent channels 5 are individually closed off from the environment 7 by cover elements 6, [0083] and Figs. 1 and 8) and the plurality of vent openings are each provided with a vent cover (cover elements 6 above poles 2a of cells 2, [0083] and Figs. 1 and 4-6). Regarding claim 2, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the housing contains a potting material encapsulating the plurality of battery cells (potting elements for thermal shielding of cells, [0057, 0080]; gaps between cells filled with potting compound 13, [0080, 0100-0101] and Fig. 10A). Regarding claim 4, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the vent covers are configured to rupture (burst, [0056, 0095]) in response to a thermal event of the battery cells (cover element is devised to open, e.g., to be ejected or destroyed, if a battery cell in a corresponding compartment goes into thermal runaway and produces gaseous venting products; [0019, 0030, 0056] – if gaseous products GP escape from a given battery cell 2, the associated cover element 6 is ejected or perforated or destroyed in order to specifically allow the escape of the gaseous products GP without neighbouring battery cells 2 being affected, in particular thermally; [0083] and Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the vent covers are flame resistant (burst disks 6 – i.e. covers 6 – preferably made out of fire-resistant material like metal, glass or ceramic, in order to withstand the external flames from a venting cell, [0027, 0095]). Regarding claim 6, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the vent covers are integrally formed with the battery cell engagement panels (6 formed within 3b, Figs. 4-5; 6 can also be panel-shaped per Figs. 6-7, 11D and remain within inventive scope of Georgiadis). Examiner notes that “the battery cell engagement panels” are not previously claimed, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above. Regarding claim 8, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the vent covers are electrically insulating (cover elements can be made of ceramic or glass, [0055, 0095] – which are known in the art to be electrically insulating). Regarding claim 13, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the vent covers are formed as a strip of vent covers (entire rows of battery cells 2 can also each have a common strip-like cover element 6, [0090, 0107] and Figs. 6-7, 11D – which remains within inventive scope of Georgiadis). Regarding claim 14, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the channel tray includes a battery cell engagement panel (cover 3b engaging tops of cells 2, Figs. 2-5) and a tray panel (tray shape of 3; Figs. 1,3,5), the battery cell engagement panel includes the plurality of vent openings therein (openings 5a of vent channels 5 are within 3b, Figs. 2-5) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1 as applied to claim s 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Keum et al. (US 2023/0275285 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 2 above but fails to explicitly teach wherein the potting material is one of a foaming resin, a non-foaming resin or a combination of foaming resin and a non-foaming resin. However, Georgiadis does teach in [0080] that potting elements can be additional protecting elements which extend over an entire length L of the battery cells 2 and can thermally shield them from each other (see also [0057]), and teaches in [0025] that organic structural foams can have fire resistant/retardant properties. Keum is analogous in the art of vehicle battery packs ([0003]) and teaches a housing (pack case 300, Fig. 10) that contains a potting material (potting resin 400 as the waterproof adhesive, [0077] and Fig. 4) encapsulating a plurality of battery cells (cells 110 into adhesive 130 which can be same as 400, [0058] and Figs. 9-10 in view of Fig. 5) wherein the potting material is a resin (the potting resin 400 is provided as a composite resin including a resin material such as a silicone resin or a urethane resin, a paraffin material that is a phase-change material, and a flame retardant such as aluminum hydroxide; [0080]). Keum teaches this composite potting resin achieves a waterproof function so that the cooling performance of the battery cells may be significantly improved, and heat transfer to the surroundings when an abnormal situation of the battery cells occurs may be more effectively prevented ([0080]). The composite potting resin of Keum reads on “one of a foaming resin, a non-foaming resin or a combination of foaming resin and a non-foaming resin” as instantly claimed. It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the potting material of Georgiadis to be the composite resin of Keum with the motivation of achieving a waterproof function so that the cooling performance of the battery cells may be significantly improved, and heat transfer to the surroundings when an abnormal situation of the battery cells occurs may be more effectively prevented as taught toward by Keum. Thus, the instant claim 3 is rendered obvious. Regarding claim 15, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 14 above and the housing includes a bottom shear plate and an upper shear plate (bottoms and upper walls of container 8, extending vertically in Fig. 8), but fails to teach the battery cell engagement panel and the tray panel include injection channels extending therethrough, wherein the injection channels are configured to allow a potting to be injected through the injection channels and between the bottom shear plate and the tray panel. Keum is analogous in the art of vehicle battery packs ([0003]) and teaches a battery a pack (10, with battery cell assembly 100) having a housing (pack case 300) that includes a bottom shear plate (base case 310) and an upper shear plate (cover frame 122 of first case 120) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum further teaches a battery cell engagement panel (main supports 126 and dividers 124) and a tray panel (seating frame 142 and dividers 146 of second case 140) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum teaches channels/openings/gaps formed between the respective dividers 124 and 146 of the engagement panels and the tray panel which are configured to allow a potting to be injected therein (the potting resin 400 is injected per [0078]; see also Figs. 4-10 showing locations of adhesives 130/400 which correspond to potting material per [0058, 0077]); therefore, such reads on “injection channels.” Keum further teaches the potting material being positioned between the bottom shear plate and the tray panel (400 between 310 and 140, Figs. 9-10). Keum teaches in [0077-0080] that the potting resin serves as a waterproof adhesive, improves cooling performance of the batteries, and prevents heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations. It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Georgiadis include injection channels to be able to inject potting material between the bottom plate of the housing and the tray as taught by Keum, in order impart the beneficial effects of waterproof adhesion, improved cooling performance of the batteries, and prevent heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations at a desired location such as that taught by Keum. Thereby, claim 15 is rendered obvious. Regarding claim 16, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 15 above and wherein the housing contains a potting material encapsulating the plurality of battery cells (additional protecting elements, e.g., potting elements, extend over an entire length L of the battery cells 2 and can thermally shield them from each other; [0080] – and see [0100-0101] regarding potting compound 13 in gaps between cells 2), but fails to teach such potting material encapsulating the channel tray and bonded to the bottom shear plate and the upper shear plate. Georgiadis does teach in [0091] and Fig. 8 that the individual housings 3 (corresponding to claimed tray) are arranged within a larger pressure-resistant container 8 (corresponding to claimed housing shear plates). Keum is analogous in the art of vehicle battery packs ([0003]) and teaches a battery a pack (10) having a housing that includes a bottom shear plate (base case 310) and an upper shear plate (first case 120) (see Keum Fig. 10), and that contains a potting material (potting resin 400 as the waterproof adhesive, [0077] and Fig. 4) encapsulating a plurality of battery cells (cells 110 into adhesive 130 which can be same as 400, [0058] and Figs. 9-10 in view of Fig. 5). Keum further teaches a tray panel (second case 140) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum teaches that tray 140 is bonded to bottom/base 310 and to upper plate 120 (at support extensions 124 thereof) via encapsulation in waterproof adhesive / potting resin 400 ([0077] and Figs. 9-10). Keum teaches in [0077-0080] that the potting resin serves as a waterproof adhesive, improves cooling performance of the batteries, and prevents heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Georgiadis include the potting material serving as waterproof adhesive so that the channel tray was encapsulated and bonded to the bottom shear plate and the upper shear plate as taught by Keum, in order impart the beneficial effects of waterproof adhesion, improved cooling performance of the batteries, and prevent heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations at a desired location such as that taught by Keum. Thereby, claim 16 is rendered obvious . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bryla (US 2019/0006650 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach the vent covers are made from a material including one of PA 66, PA6, PP, PU, epoxy, silicone, PE, mica, PS, PVC, ABS, PET, POM, PTFE, PMMA, PC, fiberglass containing plastics, and flame retardant containing plastics. However, Georgiadis does teach in [0025] glass/ceramic fiber plates being an exemplary material with high structural stability and low heat conductivity, in [0027, 0055] the cover disks preferably made out of fire-resistant material like glass, and in [0036, 0057] that silicone is an exemplary material that is non-conductive and thermally isolating. Bryla is analogous in the art of vented batteries (emission of gases and/or flames emitted from one or more electrochemical cells, Abstract) and teaches that seals may be ruptured in any number of ways during an event where gases are released from an electrochemical cell, such as a polymeric seal that will plastically flow until it ruptures under this combination of elevated temperature and pressure ([0027]). Bryla teaches appropriate seal materials include examples of polyvinyl chloride (i.e., PVC), polyethylene (i.e., PE), and other appropriate polymers which are capable of acting as a barrier to oxygen passing through the seal ([0026]). PVC and PE are among the instantly claimed materials. It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover/burst disk of Georgiadis which is desired to have reliable opening in the event of thermal runaway (Georgiadis [0027, 0057]) with the polymeric seal material such as PVC or PE as taught by Bryla with the motivation of the material being capable of acting as a barrier to oxygen passing during normal conditions, but also imparting ability to plastically flow until it ruptures under an undesirable combination of elevated temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) as taught by Bryla. Thus, the instant claim 9 is rendered obvious . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis (US 2024/0128583 A1 in view of Keum et al. (US 2023/0275285 A1) . Regarding claim 19, Georgiadis teaches a battery pack for a vehicle (battery cell arrangement for use in an aircraft, abstract and Fig. 8), comprising: a housing including at least one pack vent between an interior and an exterior of the housing (container 8 has a vent port or vent valve 8b in a side wall 8a, through which excess pressure can escape from the container 8; [0091] and Fig. 8); a plurality of battery cells disposed within the housing (groups of battery cells 2 arranged within a larger pressure-resistant container 8, [0091] and Fig. 8); and a channel tray (housing 3 with cover 3b, Figs. 1-3 and 8) including channel arrays (vent channels 5, [0083-0084] and Figs. 1-3) having a plurality of vent openings (circular openings 5a in housing cover 3b, [0083-0084] and Figs. 1-3) each positioned in connection with a vent on each of the plurality of battery cells (vent channels 5 are designed and intended to discharge the gaseous products GP escaping from the venting valve of a given battery cell 2, [0081] and Figs. 1 and 8; venting area of the cells is an area around the positive pole of the cell for cylindrical cells – battery cells 2 have a degassing valve in the area of said positive pole 2a, [0057, 0079] and 2a in Fig. 1) and the channel arrays are in connection with the at least one vent of the housing (through free air volume 9 in container 8, [0091]; and see flow arrows P connected from GP and through 8b in Fig. 8), wherein the channel system is enclosed from the rest of the volume of the pack (vent channels 5 are individually closed off from the environment 7 by cover elements 6, [0083] and Figs. 1 and 8) and the plurality of vent openings are each provided with a vent cover (cover elements 6 above poles 2a of cells 2, [0083] and Figs. 1 and 4-6), wherein the housing includes a bottom shear plate and an upper shear plate (bottoms and upper walls of container 8, extending vertically in Fig. 8), wherein the housing contains a potting material encapsulating the plurality of battery cells (additional protecting elements, e.g., potting elements, extend over an entire length L of the battery cells 2 and can thermally shield them from each other; [0080] – and see [0100-0101] regarding potting compound 13 in gaps between cells 2), but fails to teach: the potting material encapsulating the channel tray and is bonded to the bottom shear plate and the upper shear plate. Keum is analogous in the art of vehicle battery packs ([0003]) and teaches a battery a pack (10) having a housing that includes a bottom shear plate (base case 310) and an upper shear plate (first case 120) (see Keum Fig. 10), and that contains a potting material (potting resin 400 as the waterproof adhesive, [0077] and Fig. 4) encapsulating a plurality of battery cells (cells 110 into adhesive 130 which can be same as 400, [0058] and Figs. 9-10 in view of Fig. 5). Keum further teaches a tray panel (second case 140) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum teaches that tray 140 is bonded to bottom/base 310 and to upper plate 120 (at support extensions 124 thereof) via encapsulation in waterproof adhesive / potting resin 400 ([0077] and Figs. 9-10). Keum teaches in [0077-0080] that the potting resin serves as a waterproof adhesive, improves cooling performance of the batteries, and prevents heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Georgiadis include the potting material serving as waterproof adhesive so that the channel tray was encapsulated and bonded to the bottom shear plate and the upper shear plate as taught by Keum, in order impart the beneficial effects of waterproof adhesion, improved cooling performance of the batteries, and prevent heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations at a desired location such as that taught by Keum. Thereby, claim 19 is rendered obvious. Regarding claim 20, Georgiadis teaches the limitations of claim 19 above and wherein the housing includes a bottom shear plate and an upper shear plate (bottoms and upper walls of container 8, extending vertically in Fig. 8 – Examiner notes this limitation is repeated from claim 19 and is addressed above ), the battery cell engagement panel (3b with passages 5a, Fig. 3) and the tray panel (tray shape of 3 at bottom, Fig. 3) but fails to teach: include passages extending therethrough, wherein the passages are configured to allow a potting to be injected through the passages and between the bottom shear plate and the tray panel. Georgiadis does teach a potting compound 13 which can be present at tops of cells 2 ([0100], Fig. 11B). Keum is analogous in the art of vehicle battery packs ([0003]) and teaches a battery a pack (10, with battery cell assembly 100) having a housing (pack case 300) that includes a bottom shear plate (base case 310) and an upper shear plate (cover frame 122 of first case 120) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum further teaches a battery cell engagement panel (main supports 126 and dividers 124) and a tray panel (seating frame 142 and dividers 146 of second case 140) (see Keum Fig. 10). Keum teaches channels/openings/gaps formed between the respective dividers 124 and 146 of the engagement panels and the tray panel which are configured to allow a potting to be injected therein (the potting resin 400 is injected per [0078]; see also Figs. 4-10 showing locations of adhesives 130/400 which correspond to potting material per [0058, 0077]); therefore, such reads on “injection channels.” Keum further teaches the potting material being positioned between the bottom shear plate and the tray panel (400 between 310 and 140, Figs. 9-10). Keum teaches in [0077-0080] that the potting resin serves as a waterproof adhesive, improves cooling performance of the batteries, and prevents heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations. It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Georgiadis include injection channels to be able to inject potting material between the bottom plate of the housing and the tray as taught by Keum, in order impart the beneficial effects of waterproof adhesion, improved cooling performance of the batteries, and prevent heat transfer to the surroundings during abnormal situations at a desired location such as that taught by Keum. Thereby, claim 20 is rendered obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4. 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. /JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/359,347 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728
Prosecution Insights