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 .
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, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-13 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 1 recites the limitations "the surface of at least one side" and “the gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination these limitations are being interpreted as “a surface of at least one side” and “a gas” respectively.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the height direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is being interpreted as “a height direction”.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the end portion" and “the height direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination these limitations are being interpreted as “an end portion” and “a height direction” respectively.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is being interpreted as “a width”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the distance”, "the edge" and “the height direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination these limitations are being interpreted as “a distance”, “an edge” and “a height direction” respectively.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outer periphery". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is being interpreted as “an outer periphery”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the width direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is being interpreted as “a width direction”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the end portion" and “the height direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination these limitations are being interpreted as “an end portion” and “a height direction” respectively.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the end portion" and “the height direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination these limitations are being interpreted as “an end portion” and “a height direction” respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 212874603 U present in the IDS filed 08/11/2023 and a PDF translation is included in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a battery with cells and a heater along the side of the cells that heats the cells and holes opposite to a side surface of the cells that can be called an exhaust structure (fig. 1, heating film 30 with holes 31). While Li does not specify that the holes are used to exhaust gas, the limitation “the exhaust structure is used to discharge the gas between the side surface of the battery cell and the heating component” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the structure of the heater and the holes is identical to the instant application as described, the holes are capable of allowing gas to escape.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the exhaust holes are present in a middle area along a width direction (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches claim 2 as described above and further teaches that the exhaust structure has exhaust holes throughout which can be called exhaust vents (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches claim 3 as described above and further teaches that the exhaust holes are on both sides of the battery cell and the holes are staggered in a height direction as one of the holes is on the top side and the other is on the bottom side (fig. 1, page 2 paragraph 10 of the provided PDF).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Li teaches claim 2 as described above and further teaches that the exhaust holes have an anti-tear structure at an end portion of the heating component in the height direction and has an arcing edge (Fig, 6, page 3 paragraph 6). Further, the exhaust holes with respective anti-tear structures are on both sides of the battery cell and the holes can be staggered in a height direction as one of the holes is on the top side and the other is on the bottom side (fig. 1, page 2 paragraph 10 of the provided PDF).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches a heating wire on the heating component with the heating wire on an outer periphery of the exhaust structure (Fig. 5, page 6 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches a plurality of battery cells stacked along a width direction with the heating structure comprising a plurality of exhaust structures which attach to a side surface of each battery cell (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches the battery can be used in a vehicle (background).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches claim 3 as described above and further teaches the exhaust holes have an anti-tear structure at an end portion of the heating component in the height direction (Fig, 6, page 3 paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches claim 4 as described above and further teaches the exhaust holes have an anti-tear structure at an end portion of the heating component in the height direction (Fig, 6, page 3 paragraph 6).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 212874603 U present in the IDS filed 08/11/2023 and a PDF translation is included in the file wrapper) in view of Li ‘267 (CN 211320267 U present in the IDS filed 08/11/2023 and a PDF translation is included in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the dimensions of the exhaust structure. Li ‘267 teaches a battery pack with a heating film that has through holes that can release gas from between the heating film and the battery cells. Li ‘267 further teaches that the width of the through hole is 1-5 mm to properly allow for releasing an expansion force and which overlaps with the instant applications’ claimed range and is therefore obvious, See MPEP 2144.05.I (Li ‘267 bottom of page 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Li as described regarding claim 1 and modify the size of the width of the exhaust structure to be within 2-5 mm as taught by Li ‘267 in order to properly release an expansion force. Simply adjusting the size of the width is obvious and would have expected results in the form of affecting the amount of gas being released. Further, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the dimensions of the exhaust structure and the heating component. Li ‘267 teaches a battery pack with a heating film that has through holes that can release gas from between the heating film and the battery cells. Li ‘267 further teaches that the distance between at least one end of the elongated hole and the edge of the heating film is greater than or equal to 5mm to ensure the strength of the heating film. This range overlaps with the instant applications’ claimed range and is therefore obvious, See MPEP 2144.05.I (Li ‘267 bottom of page 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Li as described regarding claim 1 and modify the distance between an end of the exhaust structure and an end of the heating structure in the height direction to be within 5-6 mm as taught by Li ‘267 in order to ensure the strength of the heating film. Simply adjusting the distance between them is obvious and would have expected results in the form of affecting the strength of the heating film. Further, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights