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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 9B, element “274” appears to be pointing to the wrong object. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species (i) in the reply filed on August 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the species can be examined without undue burden. This is found persuasive and all the claims have been examined herein.
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 7-11 and 18 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the vent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the second filter adjacent the inlet end portion” in line 4. It appears that this should be “the outlet end portion.” Additionally, as currently drafted the claim is a substantial duplicate of claim 12.
Claim 18 recites that the first filter is “adjacent the inlet end portion [of the valve]” and the second filter is “adjacent to the outlet end portion [of the valve]”. This is not understood in light of parent claim 17 which recites that the flow is filtered through the filter system before the flow is communicated through a pressure relief valve. The “filter system” is defined in claim 15 as “having at least one first filter…and at least one second filter.” Therefore, according to claims 15 and 17 the first and second filters (“the filter system”) must be located upstream of the valve. Claim 18 recites that one filter is downstream of the valve, which is inconsistent with the parent claims.
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, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112234310. Regarding claims 1 and 15, the reference is directed to a traction battery assembly (top of page 2 of translation) comprising an enclosure (20) providing an interior that houses at least one battery array, a pressure relief valve (22) that communicates a flow of vent byproducts from the interior when the valve is in an open position, and a filtering system (16, 14, 18) that filters the flow (Fig. 1). The filtering systems contains different layers (screen 16, HF removal unit 14, CO removal unit 18). The screen 16 is described as having the ability to “filter solid particles” (page 5 of translation). Although it is not expressly described that the filtering system contains a first filter (e.g, the screen) having a first permeability and a second filter (e.g., HF or CO removal unit) having a second permeability different than the first, this subject matter is anticipated because a skilled artisan would immediately envisage it as being present in the reference. The layers all have different functions, and it is expressly disclosed that the screen removes particles. It would immediately be envisaged by a skilled artisan that the screen has a permeability larger than the other two layers. Claims 1 and 15 are thus anticipated. Regarding claim 2, a vent duct (10) is configured to communicate the flow from the valve. Regarding claim 3, the duct includes an inlet and an outlet portion, the first filter being adjacent the inlet portion and the second filter (18) being adjacent the outlet end portion. Regarding claim 4, the first permeability is larger than the second as set forth above. Regarding claims 5 and 16, the first filter, second filter, and duct are outside the battery enclosure assembly, and the flow is filtered after having passed through the valve. Regarding claim 6, the first and second filters span across the inner diameter of the vent duct. Regarding claims 14 and 20, the first permeability is “configured to block particles of a first size” and the second permeability is “configured to block particles of a second, different size” as claimed. The first limitation is expressly disclosed in the reference, and the second filter is fully capable of blocking particles of a different (smaller) size. Thus the limitation is met.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102021133611 in view of Lorenz et al (US 20240339718).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, DE ‘611 is directed to a traction battery assembly (abstract) comprising an enclosure (12, Fig. 1) providing an interior that houses at least one battery array, a pressure relief valve (36/50) that communicates a flow of vent byproducts from the interior when the valve is in an open position, and a filtering system having a first filter (34) having a first permeability that filters the flow (Figs. 2 and 3). The filter is described as a particle separator and is upstream of the valve (page 2 of translation).
DE ‘611 does not expressly teach that the filtering system comprises a second filter having a second permeability different than the first permeability as recited in claims 1 and 15.
Lorenz et al is directed to a degassing arrangement for a battery module. A cell degassing channel (12) comprises a series of perforated plates (three plates 34, 36, 38), each having a progressively smaller permeability and each designed to filter different particle sizes ([0015], Figure 1).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to incorporate the filters of Lorenz et al. into the system of DE ‘611. It is disclosed in [0014] that multiple filters, in addition to performing more filtering, also perform an additional cooling function on hot vent gases exiting the battery. Therefore, the artisan would be motivated to incorporate at least one additional filter into the system of DE ‘611, the existing and additional filter(s) each having a different permeability and configured to block different particle sizes. It is noted that Lorenz et al. also teaches in [0014] that since the filter plates are separated by a distance, it can be ensured that the holes do not become clogged. Thus, claims 1, 14, 15, and 20 are rendered obvious.
Regarding the different configurations recited in claims 2-7, 9-13, and 16-19, the configurations are each rendered obvious as it would be obvious as the artisan would be sufficiently skilled to place the filter(s) of Lorenz et al. in different positions relative to the valve of DE ‘614. Initially, regarding claims 2-6 and 16, Lorenz et al. discloses an external duct (12) containing the filters which span the inner diameter of the duct. It would have been obvious to place the entire duct, containing one or more filters on the outside of the enclosure of DE ‘611 to achieve the additional filtering and cooling capabilities noted above.
Regarding the embodiments of claims 7, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 19, it is noted that DE ‘611 teaches a first filter inside the battery enclosure. It would have been obvious to place a second filter adjacent to and spaced from the first filter, i.e., in a semicircular form shown in Fig. 3 of DE ‘611, in order to also achieve the additional filtering and cooling effect. Thus, both filters would be located inside the battery enclosure as claimed, and adjacent to the valve inlet, as claimed.
Regarding the embodiment of claims 10, 11, and 18, these claims recite that the first filter is adjacent a valve inlet portion and the second filter is adjacent a valve outlet portion. This configuration would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for essentially the reasons stated above with respect to claims 2-6 and 16. Upon the incorporation of a duct containing one or more filters, the first, existing filter of DE ‘611 would be located adjacent to the valve inlet as claimed and a second, added filter would be located adjacent to the valve outlet as claimed. The exact placement of the outside filter, as well as the size and geometry of the duct would have been a matter of routine design choice to one skilled in the art. Thus, the claimed configuration would be rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 recites that the enclosure assembly includes a lid and a tray, and the first and second filters span between the lid and the tray. This structure is not taught or fairly suggested by the art of record, in particular DE ‘611 in view of Lorenz. DE ‘611 teaches a semicircular filter covering only the valve hole and it would not have been obvious to use filters spanning between the lid (14) and tray (18) as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights