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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 8/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “45” has been used to designate both an “other hole” (paragraph 35 of the instant specification) and an “air vent” (paragraph 36 of the instant specification). The examiner notes Figures 2 and 5 utilizes part number 40 for an air vent, while Figures 3 and 8 do not explicitly label the air vent, instead using the reference characters for the seam and “other hole”, respectively.
Additionally, reference character “46” has been used to designate both a hood extending from an edge of the bottom of the base plate (Figure 10) and an extension extending from the edge of a base plate covering a boundary between base plates (Figure 3). While applicant refers to both as hoods in paragraphs 35 and 39 of the instant specification, the hood of Figure 3 serves a separate function as the hood presented in Figure 10, and should be represented by different part numbers.
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-10, applicant switches between the singular and plural terms for defined aspects without indicating that each of the individual elements have specific limitations. For example, in claim 1, the limitation “the cell trays including a base plate …” can be reasonably interpreted as the plurality of cell trays only having one base plate in total, even though the context of air vents being located at seams between base plates is later mentioned in the same claim implies the presence of multiple. For the purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as each individual cell tray having its own base plate, based on the context provided about a seam between base plates of cell trays defining an air vent later in the claim. The examiner recommends applicant consider rewording the claim to indicate this through language such as “the cell trays each include a base plate […]” to avoid confusion.
This type of issue recurs in later claims; claim 2 defines aspects of “the cell tray” without indicating if each cell tray necessarily has the ribs, or if only one cell tray does. For the purposes of examination, each cell tray will be interpreted as having these features. In claim 4, the limitation “comprising a layer of mica covering the base plates of the cell tray” indicates there are several base plates per each individual cell tray, as written. Based on the context of claim 1, this line will be interpreted as mica covering the base plates of the cell trays.
In claim 10, the limitation “the air vent is formed by overlapping step features along the adjacent edges of the base plate of the cell trays” as written could reasonably be interpreted as limiting air vents to be where adjacent edges of a single base plate overlap, which restricts the claim to air vents located at corners of the base plate only. The examiner recognizes this claim is likely intended to correspond to Figures 2 and 3 of the instant drawings, and recommends applicant reword the claim to be “the air vent is formed by overlapping step features along the edges of adjacent cell tray base plates”. The examiner, for the purposes of examination will interpret the air vent as being formed by overlapping step features along the adjacent edges of the base plates of cell trays.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 battery housing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 has the first mention of a battery housing; instant claim 1 defines a battery module that includes a housing, but does not specifically specify said housing to be a battery housing. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the housing of claim 1 is a housing present anywhere in the battery module. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the limitation “the battery housing” will refer to a housing somewhere in the battery module, either containing all components of the battery module or only some components of the battery module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Georgiadis (US 20240128583 A1, claiming foreign priority to 10/18/2022) in view of Feltham et al. (US 20220416359 A1; Henceforth, Feltham) and Zheng et al. (US 20160020446 A1; Henceforth, Zheng).
Regarding claim 1, Georgiadis teaches a battery cell arrangement ([0019], constituting a battery cell tray) comprising a plurality of battery cells and at least one battery housing enclosing the plurality of battery cells ([0019]). Georgiadis teaches each battery cell is associated with a respective vent channel, which vent channels open to an opening in the housing, which is further covered by a cover designed to be opened under pressure ([0019]; Figure 6, annotated below). In Figure 6, the examiner assigns spacer 4a (equivalent to ribs) and housing cover (Figure 7, element 3b, reproduced below; equivalent to a base plate of the vent tray) to be a vent tray that combines with the remaining portion of the cell tray to form a vent tray assembly. Additionally, Georgiadis teaches spacing element, or additional spacing elements, like potting elements, can be included to thermally shield the battery cells from each other ([0080]) Georgiadis teaches, in Figure 6, the vent of each battery cell is in communication with a vent channel ([0019]). Georgiadis teaches that groups of the battery cell arrangements, holding a set of battery cells can be included in a larger pressure-resistant container, which can have a vent or valve to the exterior of the container to vent gases (Figure 8, element 3; [0091]). The examiner notes the pressure-resistant container match the construction of a battery module of the instant claim, including a sidewall structure, a top shear plate and a bottom shear plate, which is sketched in Figure 8, reproduced below, as element 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Georgiadis, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
368
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, reproduced from Georgiadis.
PNG
media_image3.png
516
767
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8, reproduced from Georgiadis.
Georgiadis does not explicitly teach the cell trays have a base plate with vent openings in communication to the vent channels and an air vent either as a hole in the base plate or in a seam between the base plates of the cell trays, and a potting foam dispersed within the housing and between the batteries.
Feltham teaches a battery system (Figure 1, reproduced below, element 120; consistent with the battery module of the instant claim) comprising several battery modules containing a plurality of battery cells (consistent with the cell trays of the instant claims; Figure 1, elements 101-108; Abstract). Feltham teaches a touch cover (equivalent to a base plate of the cell tray) contains a plurality of vent openings, where each vent opening is in communication with a battery cell (Figures 4 and 6, reproduced below), each of which have vents oriented in communication with the vent openings ([0036]). Feltham teaches the presence of shaped openings are configured to change and orient the direction of venting gas in a specific direction; a specific example can be to direct hot gases towards a heat-activated thermal barrier ([0040]-[0043]; specific configurations are depicted in Figures 7 and 8, reproduced below). The examiner notes the cell tray is fully enclosed in a housing, with the touch plate as the top plate of the housing (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
867
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Feltham.
PNG
media_image5.png
237
325
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
270
346
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 4 (left) and 6 (right), reproduced from Feltham.
PNG
media_image7.png
222
706
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
244
662
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figures 7 (left) and 8 (right), reproduced from Feltham.
Feltham does not teach an air vent either as a hole in the base plate or in a seam between the base plates of the cell trays, and a potting foam dispersed within the housing and between the batteries
Zheng teaches a battery module (Abstract) comprising a plurality of battery cells, an insulating casing in which the battery cells are located (Abstract). The casing has potting holes located in the top of the casing in which a potting resin is injected located in the top of the casing ([0006]; Figure 5, reproduced below, element 31). Zheng teaches that the presence of the potting resin helps thermally insulate the battery cells from others experiencing safety issues and/or leaks ([0008]). Zheng additionally teaches the presence of air vents also located in the top of the casing, corresponding to air holes in a base plate of the instant claims, ([0006]; Figure 5, below, element 37). Zheng teaches these vent holes permit the escaping of gas from the battery module during the potting process, allowing the resin to be uniformly distributed within the battery module ([0081]). The examiner notes, in this case, the vent channel is formed between the housing of the battery system and the battery modules. The examiner notes that the base plate has holes in the top of the cell tray (Figures 3 and 5, reproduced below) that correspond to a location each cell is placed.
PNG
media_image9.png
267
603
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Zheng.
PNG
media_image10.png
276
461
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, reproduced from Zheng.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module construction of Georgiadis by enclosing the cell tray within a case with a base plate in communication with the vent channels, as taught by Feltham, and by including air vents and potting holes to add a potting resin to the cell tray, as taught by Zheng from the same field of endeavor. Feltham demonstrates precedent in the art to utilize battery modules with a base plate that have a plurality of holes in communication with the vent of batteries in order to direct the venting gases in a particular direction. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the inclusion of the base plate with openings configured to change the direction of venting gases would have had the predictable result of directing gases along the vent channels of Georgiadis, as it would be performing the same function taught by Feltham. See MPEP 2143 (I) B. Additionally, there would have been a motivation to include a plurality of air vents and potting holes in order to inject a potting resin within the battery cell tray, as taught by Zheng in the same field of endeavor, as the air vents allow for gases to escape, enabling the potting material to settle evenly within the battery cell tray ([0081]), and the potting material imparts the benefit of thermally isolating battery cells from one another, mitigating issues if one experiences safety issues ([0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Feltham teaches the openings in the touch cover (the base plate of the instant claim, as outlined in Claim 1, above) can take the form of “louvres” (equivalent to a protruding hood; see Figure 8 above) and can be located over each battery cell, in order to direct venting gases in a particular direction ([0041]; Figure 8, above). The examiner notes that, since the vent openings in the base plates form an edge in the base plate, the formation of the “louvres” shape taught by Feltham will extend from the edge of the base plate formed by the vent opening. While Feltham directs this to vent openings, Zheng teaches the inclusion of air vents and potting holes that help gas escape while potting resin is added, which enables the potting resin to fill evenly ([0006] and [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air vents of the battery module of claim 1 by including a protruding hood extending from an edge of the base plate of the cell tray. Georgiadis demonstrates precedent in the art to include protruding structures in the form of “louvres” (see Figure 8, above) in order to direct gases in a particular direction ([0041]). A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the utilization of the protruding hoods of Georgiadis with the air vents of Zheng would have predictably enables the air vents of Zheng to direct gases in a particular direction, as it would be performing the same function taught by Georgiadis. See MPEP 21443 (I) B.
Regarding claim 6, Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Georgiadis teaches the battery cells are cylindrical (Figure 7, reproduced above). Therefore, Georgiadis teaches all the further limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Feltham teaches the touch plate (corresponding to the base plate) is the top cover of a casing surrounding a battery module (corresponding to a battery cell tray of the instant claims; Figure 6, above). Zheng teaches the air vents include a plurality of air vents (Figure 5), some of which are also located in a center region of the insulating casing (Figure 5; [0006]). As indicated in claim 1, above, the top portion of the insulating casing corresponds to the base plate of the cell tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of claim 1 by including a plurality of air vents in the center region of a battery housing, as taught by Feltham and Zheng, in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to include air vents in the housing of a battery cell tray, as taught by Zheng, in order to allow air to escape during potting, and to allow the potting resin to be evenly distributed in the battery module ([0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Georgiadis teaches the vent tray (see the annotations of Figure 6, above) includes a base plate (Figure 7, above, element 3b) and a plurality of parallel ribs (Figure 6, above, element 4a) that align with a respective one of a plurality of parallel ribs of the cell tray (Figure 6, above, element 4) to define the plurality of vent channels (Figure 6, element 5). The examiner notes Georgiadis does not teach a plurality of pairs of parallel ribs on the base plate of the vent tray.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs on the base plate of the vent tray of Georgiadis by changing the single set of parallel ribs into a set of pairs of parallel ribs. It has been held that a the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that duplicating the parallel ribs of Georgiadis such that pairs of parallel ribs are formed that align with the ribs of the cell tray would not, on its own, impart new or unexpected results. Therefore, the modification is considered obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng in view of Kuo et al. (US 20230238647 A1; Henceforth, Kuo).
Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the cell tray includes a plurality of parallel ribs extending from the base plate of the cell tray and the vent tray includes a base plate and a plurality of parallel ribs that extend from the base plate of the vent tray, and the plurality of parallel ribs of the cell tray and the plurality of parallel ribs of the vent tray combine to form the plurality of vent channels.
Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Georgiadis teaches the vent tray (see the annotations of Figure 6, above) includes a base plate (Figure 7, above, element 3b) and a plurality of parallel ribs (Figure 6, above, element 4a) that align with a plurality of parallel ribs of the cell tray (Figure 6, above, element 4) to define the plurality of vent channels (Figure 6, element 5). The examiner notes the ribs of Georgiadis are not on the base plate of the cell tray, and, while Feltham teaches shaped openings that could be construed as ribs (Figure 7, above), the examiner interprets these structures to be solely vent openings. Thus, Georgiadis, Feltham, nor Zheng teach the parallel ribs of the cell tray are located on the base plate of the cell tray.
Kuo teaches a traction battery pack with a vent management system (Abstract; Figure 4, reproduced below). Kuo teaches a battery array includes a support structure of end plates, side plates, and top and bottom plates ([0047]), wherein the structure depicted in Figure 4 is the top plate of the battery array. The examiner notes this is equivalent to a base plate for a cell tray in the instant claims. The top plate contains a plurality of guide arms (equivalent to parallel ribs; Figure 4, element 74 and [0059]) in order to establish a plurality of vent passages into a main vent passage, and to guide venting gas in a desired direction ([0059]-[0060]).
PNG
media_image11.png
474
806
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 11, reproduced from Kuo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified he battery module of claim 1 by utilizing a base plate with a plurality of parallel ribs, as taught by Kuo in the same field of endeavor, to combine with parallel ribs of the base plate of the vent tray in order to create vent channels. Kuo demonstrates the use of a ribbed base plate, in order to direct venting gases along desired paths and directions {0059]). A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that utilizing a base plate with similar ribs, in addition to the parallel ribs on the base plate of the vent tray, would have predictably allowed vent gases to be directed through a vent channel, as they would be performing the same function as they had independently. See MPEP 2143 (I) A.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng in view of Wood (US 20090274952 A1) and Boddakayala et al. (US 20240072336 A1, filed 8/29/2022; Henceforth, Boddakayala).
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the battery module according to claim 1, further comprising a layer of mica covering the base plates of the cell tray and wherein the air vent is defined between a seam between the cell trays and the layer of mica.
Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Zheng teaches the use of air vents to allow air to escape when adding potting resin ([0081]), but does not teach the air vent is defined between a seam between cell trays and a layer of mica, disposed on the base plate.
Wood teaches a battery module ([0004]) with a plurality of battery cells within a cell tray comprising an upper and lower cell tray ([0004]). Wood teaches there are two cell trays in close proximity, with a seam between the two base plates (Figure 11, reproduced below). Wood does not teach the inclusion of mica on the base plates, where the mica helps define an air vent in the seam between the cell trays.
PNG
media_image12.png
289
377
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 11, reproduced from Wood.
Boddakayala teaches thermal barriers and venting system for battery arrays (Abstract). Boddakayala the battery arrays may be surrounded in a support structure with a top plate, bottom plate, and surrounding side plates ([0043]). The examiner notes the top plate is equivalent to a base plate for the cell tray. Boddakayala teaches the inclusion of vent port covers, designed to allow the passage of gas during battery venting events ([0064]; Figure 2, annotated below, element 84). Boddakayala teaches a mica sheets is adequate to be used as a vent port cover ([0064]). Figure 2 (annotated below) depicts the mica vent port cover disposed on top of the top plate, thus meeting the definition of a mica layer on the base plate, as required by the instant claim.
PNG
media_image13.png
616
875
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Boddakayala, annotated by the examiner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of claim 1 by including mica on the base plate, and having the air vent be defined by the seam between two base plates and mica. Zheng teaches the necessity of air vent to allow air to escape during the potting process ([0006] and [0081]), and Wood demonstrates having base plates of cell trays in close proximity, wherein a gap is formed that air can pass through (Figure 11, above). Since Boddakayala teaches the use of mica sheet vent coverings that are secured to the base plate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the inclusion of a mica vent covering between adjacent base plates in order to allow gas to pass through, forming an air vent, since it would be performing the same function as taught by Boddakayala, which would be capable of performing the same function to the air vents taught by Zheng. See MPEP 2143 (I) A and B.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng in view of Boddakayala and Woignier et al. (Springer Handbook of Aerogels, Chapter 10: “Permeability of Silica Aerogels”, published 2023; Henceforth, Woignier).
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the battery module of claim 1, further comprising a semi-permeable media extending between rows of the plurality of battery cells and adjacent to the plurality of cell trays.
Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Georgiadis teaches the spacers, element 4 in Figure 6, above, are made of a thermally insulating or fire retardant material (Claim 5). Georgiadis states glass, metal, or ceramics may be fire-resistant materials ([0095]), but does not explicitly teach the spacing elements are a semi-permeable media.
Boddakayala teaches thermal barriers and venting system for battery arrays (Abstract). One of the thermal barriers taught are aerogels ([0004]), which are located between foam sheets located between battery cells (see Figure 2, annotated below; [0048]). The examiner notes the foam sheets may be polyurethane sheets ([0049]). The examiner notes that aerogels have a low gas permeability on the order of 10-60 nm2, as evidenced by Woignier, which constitutes a material that can, to some extent, allow gas to pass through (Chapter 10, Abstract, page 261). Based on Figure 6, the examiner assigns the array on the left constitutes a cell tray, and the array on the right a different cell tray (see the Figure 6 annotations, below), and thus there is an aerogel layer disposed in between the cell trays.
PNG
media_image14.png
616
793
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Boddakayala, annotated by the examiner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of claim 1 by utilizing spacing elements, located adjacent to the battery cell trays and between the battery cells made from a semi-permeable media. Boddakayala demonstrates precedent in the art to utilize thermal barriers made from aerogel, which is a semi-permeable media as evidenced by Woignier, located between the battery cells and adjacent to the cell trays. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that simple substitution of the spacing elements of Georgiadis for those taught by Boddakayala would have predictably separated battery cells while permitting gases to pass, since it would be performing the same function taught by Boddakayala. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng in view of Wakabayashi et al. (EP 3916866 A1; Henceforth, Wakabayashi).
Regarding claim 8, Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1. Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng do not specify the air vent is less than 1 mm wide in at least one direction.
Wakabayashi teaches a battery pack with battery cells (Abstract). The battery pack as vent holes on the top and sides of the housing for gases to vent out of the battery pack (Abstract; Figure 6, reproduced below, element 37). Wakabayashi teaches the vent holes have a diameter of between 0.5 mm and 3 mm ([0018], page 4), and that the vent gases cannot be smoothly exhausted if the number of vent holes is too small and the inner diameters are excessively small ([0035], page 6).
PNG
media_image15.png
586
754
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Wakabayashi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air vents of the battery module of claim 1 by making the diameters of the air vents less than 1 mm wide in at least one direction, as taught by Wakabayashi in the same field of endeavor. The examiner notes the range for the width of the air vent taught by Wakabayashi overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width of the air vent from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Wakabayashi, for the air vent to be between 0.5 mm and 3 mm in diameter, in order to permit the smooth exhaust of gases. While Wakabayashi teaches the exhausting of smoke (calling the vent holes “smoke vent holes” in [0035], page 6), the examiner notes that, Zheng teaches the inclusion of air vents to allow gases to escape during the potting process. Since Zheng and Wakabayashi both teach the venting of gases, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the diameter of the vent holes could be set to the range taught by Wakabayashi, without altering the function of the air holes taught by Zheng. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/421271 (published as US 20250239724 A1; Henceforth, US’271) either alone or in view of Zheng and/or Feltham, Boddakayala, Woignier and Wakabayashi, as outlined in Table 1, below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-9 except:
The vent tray assembly includes an air vent through one of a hole in the base plate and a seam between the base plates of the cell trays (Claim 1)
The air vent includes a plurality of air vents including a protruding hood extending from an edge of the base plate of the cell tray (Claim 3)
A layer of mica covering the base plates of the cell tray and wherein the air vent is defined between a seam between the cell trays and the layer of mica (Claim 4)
The inclusion of a semi-permeable media extending between rows of the plurality of battery cells and adjacent to the plurality of cell trays (Claim 5)
The air vent is less than 1 mm wide in at least one direction (Claim 8)
Copending Application Number 18/421271
Instant Claims
Additional Art
Claims 1, 2, 6-7, 9
Zheng
Claim 3
Zheng and Feltham
Claim 4
Zheng, Wood, and Boddakayala
Claim 5
Zheng, Boddakayala, and Woignier
Claim 8
Zheng and Wakabayashi
Regarding an air vent through one of a hole in the base plate and a seam between the base plates of the cell trays, Zheng discloses such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 1, above. This modification also cures the shortcomings US’271 has with instant claims 2, 6-7, and 9.
Regarding the air vent includes a plurality of air vents including a protruding hood extending from an edge of the base plate of the cell tray, Zheng and Feltham discloses such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claims 1 and 3, above.
Regarding the layer of mica covering the base plates of the cell tray and wherein the air vent is defined between a seam between the cell trays and the layer of mica, Zheng, Wood, and Boddakayala disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 4, above.
Regarding the inclusion of a semi-permeable media extending between rows of the plurality of battery cells and adjacent to the plurality of cell trays, Zheng, Boddakayala, and Woignier disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 5, above.
Regarding the air vent being less than 1 mm wide in at least one direction, Zheng and Wakabayashi disclose such a teaching; see the 35 U.S.C. rejection for claim 8, above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the air vent is formed by overlapping step features along adjacent edges of the base plate of the cell trays.
Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng teach the battery module of claim 1, and are considered the closest pertinent art to the instant claim. Georgiadis, Feltham, and Zheng do not suggest the air vent is formed by overlapping step features along adjacent edges of the base plate of the cell trays. While boundaries between cell trays are known (for example, Georgiadis, Figure 8 and Wood, Figure 11), having stepped base plates for the purpose of forming an air vent is not something that is suggested in the art. Therefore, the claim is found to be allowable, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the formal matters are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang (US 20250096345 A1) discloses a thermal traction battery with a vent manifold.
Kim (US 20240380062 A1) teaches a battery pack with a vent channel.
Pröll et al. (US 20230246289 A1) teaches a battery system with a battery pack and a venting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights