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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08-11-2023, 12-12-2023, and 11-25-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215578941 U hereinafter Tang.
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches a battery module [10] (see figure 2) comprising: a plurality of battery cells [12], wherein each battery cell is provided with a pressure relief valve [13] and the pressure relief valve is configured to be actuated and release internal pressure in the battery cell; and a fire-fighting tube (protective tube) [200] that is configured to accommodate a fire-fighting filler, wherein the fire-fighting tube [200] is disposed on a side of the plurality of battery cells that is provided with the pressure relief valve, and wherein the fire-fighting tube is provided with a discharge (drainage) opening [110] that is configured to discharge the fire-fighting filler toward the pressure relief valve when the pressure relief valve is actuated (see annotated figure 2 below, paragraphs 31-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang further teaches that the fire-fighting tube is provided with a discharge (drainage) opening [110] that is spaced out from the pressure relief valve (i.e., disposed in a staggered manner with the pressure relief mechanism) (paragraph 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a discharge (drainage) opening disposed in a staggered manner with the pressure relief mechanism before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Tang discloses that such configuration can form sufficient pressure relief space in the battery module (paragraph 37).
Regarding Claims 2-7, Tang teaches that the fire-fighting tube (protective tube) [200] can be formed with a plurality of pipes (i.e., first pipe, second pipe, and third pipe connected with openings as claimed) (paragraph 21). Additionally, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Tang teaches that the fire-fighting tube is provided with a discharge (drainage) opening [110] that breaks open and release the fire-fighting filler (i.e., sealing member configured to be damaged when the pressure relief mechanism is actuated) (paragraph 35). Tang teaches a sealing member that breaks from high-pressure gas (i.e., made from a thermosensitive material).
Regarding Claim 10, Tang teaches that the battery cell further comprises a side wall, wherein an outer surface of the side wall is provided with a groove, and the pressure relief valve [13] is disposed in the groove (see figure 2, paragraphs 32-34).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Tang teaches that the fire-fighting tube [200] can be in contact or spaced apart from the surface of the battery cell provided with the pressure relief valve (paragraphs 36-37, see figure 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Tang teaches a flexible fire-fighting tube [200] (paragraph 43).
Regarding Claim 15, Tang teaches that the battery module is configured to provide electrical energy for an electric apparatus (paragraphs 1-3).
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215537954 U hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells [21], wherein each battery cell is provided with a explosion-proof valve [213] and the explosion-proof valve is configured to be actuated and release internal pressure in the battery cell; and a fire extinguishing tube [11] that is configured to accommodate a fire extinguishing agent, wherein fire extinguishing tube is disposed on a side of the plurality of battery cells that is provided with the explosion-proof valve, and wherein the fire extinguishing tube is provided with an interface (discharge opening) [13] that is configured to discharge the fire extinguishing agent toward the explosion-proof valve when the explosion-proof valve is actuated (see annotated figure 2 below, paragraphs 31-47).
PNG
media_image2.png
451
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhang further teaches that the fire extinguishing tube [11] is provided with an interface (discharge opening) [13] that is spaced out from the explosion-proof valve (i.e., disposed in a staggered manner with the pressure relief mechanism) (paragraph 34, 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a discharge opening disposed in a staggered manner with the pressure relief mechanism before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Zhang discloses that such configuration can effectively release pressure from the battery cells (paragraphs 9-10).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang teaches that the battery module is configured to provide electrical energy for an electric apparatus (paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. 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, 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights