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 the claims
Claims 1, 8 is/are amended. Currently claims 1,3-5,7,8 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “area narrow” is typographic mistake and should be read as ”are narrow”, as clarified by Applicant in the interview held on 12/01/2025 and is read accordingly. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-5,7,8 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.
The term “narrow” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the “narrow paths” recited in claim 1 are indefinite.
The term “narrow” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the “narrow paths” recited in claim 8 are indefinite.
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.
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(s) 1,3-5,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (20190355960) in view of Frederick (5002100) further in view of Yasumitsu (JP H06163029 A).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 3-5, Hong, (Fig. 1-3), discloses an electrolyte injection system supplying an electrolyte solution to a battery pouch 20 (case formed as pouch, Para 44) accommodating an electrode assembly 10, the electrolyte injection system comprising: an injection pipe (pipe portion at 30 connected to horizontal leg of 120) for injecting the electrolyte solution through an opening (at 31) formed on the battery pouch 20; an electrolyte solution supply portion 200-400 comprising an electrolyte solution pump 200.
Hong discloses a branching piping system 120,121 (when battery cells are two, since battery cells can be one or more, Para 14) connecting the injection pipe and the supply portion but fails to disclose Y-shaped manifold connecting the injection pipe and the supply portion 200-400. Frederick teaches a battery supply system comprising: an injection pipe (at bottom of 23) for injecting fluid through an opening (at 12) formed on the battery; a supply portion 15,16 positioned at a higher level than batteries; and a Y-shaped manifold (17, 18,19,20) connecting the injection pipe (at bottom of 23) and the supply portion 15,16, wherein the manifold (17, 18,19,20) portion comprises at least one Y-shaped manifold (17, 18,19,20) and the supply portion 15,16 is located above the manifold. The Y-shaped manifold (17, 18,19,20) a first coupling hole (at top of 17) for receiving the liquid from the supply portion 15,16; and a second coupling hole (at 19) for supplying the liquid introduced through the first coupling hole to the injection pipe (at bottom of 23). The second coupling hole (at 19) is located relatively lower than the first coupling hole (at top of 17) so that the manifold may form an inclination. The manifold portion further comprises a connecting portion (21) connected to the second coupling hole (at end of 19). The manifold comprises a first coupling hole (at top of 17) for receiving the liquid from the liquid supply portion: and a second coupling hole (at 19) for supplying the liquid introduced through the first coupling hole to the injection pipe, wherein the liquid supplier comprises a discharge hole (at bottom of 19) for discharging the liquid, wherein the liquid supply portion 15,16 is directly connected to first coupling hole of the manifold the manifold (at 17). Frederick shows the first coupling hole (at top of 17) and the second coupling hole (at 19) communicate with each other inside the manifold, and a (branching point at bottom of 17) point where the first coupling hole and the second coupling hole extend and meet together is a center (branching point below 17 is between legs 18) of the manifold, and wherein a length from the center (length of leg 17) of the manifold to the first coupling hole is longer (conduit 17 is clearly shown much longer than rest of manifold without need for precise measurements) than a length from the center of the manifold to the second coupling hole (at 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Hong with a Y-shaped manifold connecting the injection pipe and the supply portion as described above and taught by Frederick in order to enable supply to two sets of batteries selectively. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Hong with liquid supply portion (pump outlet in Hong) located above a Y-shaped manifold having manifold inlet at its upper portion and bottom outlets connected to battery injection pipe by means of connecting pipe as taught by Frederick in order to prevent backflow due to gravity.
Hong as modified (with Frederick) discloses liquid supply portion outlet (pump outlet in Hong) directly connected to manifold inlet opening but fails to disclose a transfer hose between manifold inlet opening and pump (liquid supply) outlet. Yasumitsu teaches a manifold 12,9,2,10,16,17,18 for delivering liquid to batteries 5 with a transfer hose between manifold inlet opening 12 and liquid supply portion outlet (outlet of 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Hong as modified with transfer hose between manifold inlet opening and liquid supply outlet (pump outlet in case of Hong) as taught by Yasumitsu in order to enable greater flexibility in positioning of pump.
The manifold of Hong as modified (with Frederick) would have an inflow and two outflow passages towards the coupling holes meet at a fluidic central point in the middle of the Y-shape as such fluidic central point is considered as the center of the manifold inside the manifold. The paths to the holes from the fluidic central point are seen as narrow.
As to claim 7, Hong as modified the electrolyte solution supply having a control valve 410 controlling supply of the electrolyte solution.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (20190355960) in view of Lo (20190032812) further in view of Cameron (5014740).
Hong discloses electrolyte injection system supplying an electrolyte solution to a battery pouch 20 (case formed as pouch, Para 44) accommodating an electrode assembly 10, the electrolyte injection system comprising: an injection pipe (downstream portion 30,31 below 120 to battery pouch opening) for injecting the electrolyte solution through an opening formed on the battery pouch; an electrolyte solution supply portion 200-400 comprising an electrolyte solution pump 200; and a manifold portion 120 connecting the injection pipe and the electrolyte solution supply portion wherein the manifold comprises a first coupling hole 121 for receiving the electrolyte solution from the electrolyte solution supply portion; and a second coupling hole (at downstream vertical portion of 120) for supplying the electrolyte solution introduced through the first coupling hole to the injection pipe, and wherein the second coupling hole (at downstream vertical portion of 120) is located relatively lower than the first coupling hole 121 so that the manifold may form an inclination.
Hong discloses manifold 120 having an inlet 121 and three outlets (when number of battery cells is three, since battery cells can be one or more, Para 14) but fails to disclose manifold oriented such that inlet is at top and outlets are at the bottom. Lo teaches (Fig. 1, Para 27) a manifold oriented such that inlet 11 is at top and outlets 14 are at the bottom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Hong with manifold oriented such that inlet is at top and outlets are at the bottom as taught by Lo in order to prevent gravitational backflow.
Hong as modified would have manifold with inlet coupling hole at top and 3 outlet coupling holes at bottom but fails to disclose two of the outlet holes at the middle portion between inlet and bottom outlet coupling holes.
Cameron teaches a distribution manifold (middle manifold and 40,40) and middle cross-shaped manifold, the middle manifold having an inlet coupling hole (to 42) and an opposite outlet coupling holes and two middle coupling holes (connected to 40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Hong as modified with manifold having cross-shaped middle manifold with one outlet hole opposite inlet hole and two middle holes as taught by Cameron as an art recognized substitute manifold structure providing predictable results of dividing flow from inlet to multiple outlets.
The manifold of Hong as modified (with Cameron) would have an inflow and outflow passages towards the coupling holes meet at a fluidic central point in the middle of the manifold (since Cameron manifold is symmetric in shape) as such fluidic central point is considered as the center of the manifold inside the manifold. The paths to the holes from the fluidic central point are seen as narrow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments regarding claim 1, that “Hong does not clearly disclose the location of the center of a manifold and whether the center of the manifold is located inside the manifold … does not disclose that the paths … are narrow” are not persuasive since Frederick is cited to show center of manifold inside the manifold (inflow path and outflow paths meet inside the manifold, which can be regarded as the center of manifold). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The term “narrow” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, all the paths in the cited prior art references are considered ”narrow”.
Applicant' s arguments that Frederick … does not clearly disclose the location of the center of those elements … or … center of those … does not disclose that paths … are narrow” are not persuasive since Frederick shows center of manifold inside the manifold (inflow path and outflow paths meet inside the manifold, which can be regarded as the center of manifold). While it is true that precise dimensions cannot be relied upon however, the courts have ruled that “While it is true that drawings may not always be relied upon for anticipation of a later application, it is also true that, if a drawing clearly suggests to one skilled in the art the way in which the result sought is accomplished by whether the prior patentee's showing was accidental or intentional”. PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos, 482 Fed. Appx. 568, 573, 2012 BL 125031, 3 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicant' s arguments regarding claim 8, that “Hong does not clearly disclose the location of the center of a manifold and whether the center of the manifold is located inside the manifold … does not disclose that the paths … are narrow” are not persuasive since Cameron is cited to show center of manifold inside the manifold (inflow path and outflow paths meet inside the manifold, which can be regarded as the center of manifold). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant' s arguments regarding claim 8, that “Cameron does not disclose the location of the center of a manifold, and whether the center of the manifold is located inside the manifold. Also, Cameron does not disclose that the paths from the center of the manifold to a first coupling hole (e.g., 42) and a second coupling hole (e.g., 40) are narrow” are not persuasive since manifold of Hong as modified (with Cameron) would have an inflow and outflow passages towards the coupling holes meet at a fluidic central point in the middle of the manifold (since Cameron manifold is symmetric in shape) as such fluidic central point is considered as the center of the manifold inside the manifold. The paths to the holes from the fluidic central point are seen as narrow.
While it is true that precise dimensions cannot be relied upon however, the courts have ruled that “While it is true that drawings may not always be relied upon for anticipation of a later application, it is also true that, if a drawing clearly suggests to one skilled in the art the way in which the result sought is accomplished by whether the prior patentee's showing was accidental or intentional”. PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos, 482 Fed. Appx. 568, 573, 2012 BL 125031, 3 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
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 Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753