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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 28 Aug 2026, with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “one or a plurality of flame extinguishing plates that are disposed closer to the opening and each include a plurality of through-holes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the phrase “disposed closer to the opening” is to be interpreted. For examination purposes, any flame extinguishing plate that is within the opening can be understood as being disposed closer to the opening.
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujikawa (US 2009/0197153).
As to claim 1, Fujikawa discloses an electronic device (electronic apparatus 50, see Fujikawa: [0066] and Fig. 9) comprising:
a housing (battery housing part 60, see Fujikawa: [0066] and Fig. 9) including a recess (i.e., the internal space within battery housing part 60, in which batteries 19 are disposed, see Fujikawa: Fig. 8 and Illustration 1 below); a battery inserted through an opening of the recess and disposed inside the recess (batteries 19 are disposed within the opening of the recess of housing part 60, see Fujikawa: Fig. 9 and Illustration 1. Note also that the manner in which the batteries are inserted does not patentably limit the structure of the claimed electronic device);
PNG
media_image1.png
692
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 9 of Fujikawa.
one or a plurality of flame extinguishing plates (mesh member 62, which has a heat-absorbing effect and thereby reads on a flame-extinguishing plate, see Fujikawa: [0069] and Fig. 9) that are disposed closer to the opening (i.e., mesh member 62 is disposed within the opening of the recess as shown in Fig. 9, see also the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above) and each include a plurality of through-holes allowing an inside and an outside of the recess to communicate with each other (mesh member 62 is a mesh and therefore by definition has a plurality of through-holes. As such, mesh member 62 allows for communication between the inside of the recess and the outside of the recess via ventilation hole 61, see Fujikawa: [0067] and Fig. 9); and
an electronic component configured to operate using electric power supplied by the battery (batteries 19 supply electric power to the electric circuits of electronic apparatus 50, which read on the claimed electronic component, see Fujikawa: [0066]).
As to claim 2, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, wherein a gap is formed between the battery and the one or plurality of flame extinguishing plates (see Fujikawa: Fig. 9, a gap is formed between batteries 19 and mesh member 62, which reads on a flame extinguishing plate).
As to claim 4, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, further comprising a flow channel formed between a side wall of the recess and the battery (see Fujikawa: Fig. 9 and Illustration 2 below, showing a flow channel between battery 19 and the sidewall of the recess), wherein the flow channel is configured to allow a gas released from the battery to flow toward the one or plurality of flame extinguishing plates (i.e., the flow channel shown below allows vent gas released from battery 19 to flow toward mesh member 62, which reads on a flame extinguishing plate).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 9 of Fujikawa.
As to claim 9, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, wherein the one or plurality of flame extinguishing plates are made of metal (mesh member 62, which reads on a flame extinguishing member, is made of metal, see Fujikawa: [0069]).
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(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2009/0197153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin (US 2022/0271387).
As to claim 3, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, comprising a flame extinguishing plate (mesh member 62, see Fujikawa: Fig. 9) that reads on a first flame extinguishing plate having a through-hole (mesh member 62 is a mesh and therefore by definition has a plurality of through-holes, see Fujikawa: [0067] and Fig. 9). Fujikawa’s flame extinguishing plate provides a heat-absorbing effect (see Fujikawa: [0069]).
However, Fujikawa only discloses a single flame extinguishing plate and does not disclose a second flame extinguishing plate that is disposed to overlap the first flame extinguishing plate and has a through-hole, and the through-hole of the first flame extinguishing plate communicates with the through-hole of the second flame extinguishing plate.
Shin teaches a battery module having first and second flame extinguishing plates (mesh members 230, see Shin: [0065] and Fig. 7) wherein the second flame extinguishing plate is disposed to overlap the first flame extinguishing plate (see Shin: Fig. 7) and has a through-hole, and the through-hole of the first flame extinguishing plate communicates with the through-hole of the second flame extinguishing plate (i.e., first and second mesh members 230 are meshes, and therefore by definition have through-holes. The through-holes of the first and second flame extinguishing plates of Shin communicate with each other, see Shin: Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame extinguishing plate of Fujikawa by adding a duplicate, second flame extinguishing plate such that the second flame extinguishing plate is disposed to overlap the first flame extinguishing plate and has a through-hole, and the through-hole of the first flame extinguishing plate communicates with the through-hole of the second flame extinguishing plate, in the manner taught by Shin. Said artisan would have been motivated to add a second flame extinguishing plate to Fujikawa’s electronic device in order to double the heat-absorbing effect provided by the flame extinguishing plates.
As to claim 7, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, including a flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes (mesh member 62 is a mesh and therefore by definition has a plurality of through-holes, see Fujikawa: [0067] and Fig. 9).
However, Fujikawa does not disclose a plurality of through-holes that are arranged in a grid pattern.
Shin teaches a battery module having a flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes wherein the plurality of through-holes are arranged in a grid pattern. (mesh member 230, see Shin: Fig. 3). Shin’s through-holes perform an analogous function of allowing vent gas to be discharged from the battery housing (see Shin: [0065]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Fujikawa by replacing Fujikawa’s flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes with the flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes arranged in a grid pattern that is taught by Shin. Said artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious because Shin teaches that a flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes arranged in a grid pattern is a functionally equivalent structure to Fujikawa’s flame extinguishing plate that accomplishes the same result of allowing vent gas to be discharged from the battery housing. Further, arranging the vent holes of Fujikawa into a grid pattern would fail to alter the operation of Fujikawa’s electronic device in a patentably distinct manner and would fail to yield any new benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2009/0197153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motokawa (US 2019/0273243).
As to claim 5, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, including a battery (battery 19, Fujikawa: Figs. 1 and 9), but Fujikawa does not disclose a battery wherein the battery include a pressure reducing valve configured to be opened toward the one or plurality of flame extinguishing plates.
Motokawa teaches a cell module comprising similar batteries (cylindrical cell 11: Motokawa: [0019] and Fig. 1) wherein the batteries include a pressure reducing valve (safety valve 16, Motokawa: [0020] and Fig. 1) configured to open outward (see Motokawa: Fig. 5). The pressure reducing valves of Motokawa open outward when the internal pressure of the battery exceeds a predetermined level, and thereby allows high-temperature gas from the battery to be discharged from the battery (see Motokawa: [0020], [0028], and Fig. 5).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Fujikawa by adding the pressure reducing valve configured to be opened outward taught by Motokawa to the batteries. Such a modification would result in the pressure reducing valve being configured to open toward the one or plurality of flame extinguishing plates. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow high-temperature gas to be discharged from the battery in the manner taught by Motokawa.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2009/0197153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2017/0368392).
As to claim 6, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, including a flame extinguishing plate having a plurality of through-holes (mesh member 62 is a mesh and therefore by definition has a plurality of through-holes, see Fujikawa: [0067] and Fig. 9).
Fujikawa is silent as to the size of these through-holes, and does not disclose through-holes wherein each of the plurality of through-holes has a size of from 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm, inclusive.
Smith teaches a flame arrestor that acts as a porous barrier that allows vent gas to escape from a battery system (see Smith: [0003]-[0006]), which is the same function performed by Fujikawa’s flame extinguishing plates. Smith teaches that flame arrestors typically have through-holes (pores) that have a size of 0.05 mm to 0.60 mm (see Smith: [0006]), which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm. Smith further teaches that the average size of the through-holes is determined by the desired flow rate of the battery, and that different flow rates can be realized by adjusting the size of the through-holes (see Smith: [0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Fujikawa by giving the through-holes a size of 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm as taught by Smith. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujikawa’s invention in this manner because Smith teaches that this is a typical through-hole size for a battery venting structure. Additionally, said artisan would have been motivated to set the through-hole size to 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm in order to achieve a desired flow rate, as taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2009/0197153).
As to claim 8, Fujikawa discloses the electronic device according to Claim 1, including one or more flame extinguishing plates (mesh member 62, which has a heat-absorbing effect and thereby reads on a flame-extinguishing plate, see Fujikawa: [0069] and Fig. 9) but is silent as to the thickness of said flame extinguishing plates, and Fujikawa does not explicitly disclose one or more flame extinguishing plates that each have a thickness from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, inclusive.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and where a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04, “Changes in Size/Proportion”). In the instant case, setting the thickness of the flame extinguishing plates of Shin et al. to be in the range of 0.5 mm to 1 mm would fail to alter the function of the plates in a patentably distinct manner. Further, such a modification would fail to produce any new benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to set the flame extinguishing plates of Fujikawa to have a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, inclusive, because such a modification would not perform in a patentably distinct manner from the prior art structure and would fail to yield any new benefits that would not have been reasonably expected by said artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen: (US 2022/014043) teaches an analogous venting structure comprising a plurality of flame-arresting plates (see Fig. 5).
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights