CTNF 18/449,897 CTNF 99905 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the battery" in Line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 11 recites “at least one battery assembly” and a battery cell” but does not introduce “a battery”. Claims 12-20 are rejected under 112(b) as they ultimately depend from independent claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Vizzini" . In regard to Claims 1, 7 and 10 , Vizzini et al. discloses a battery assembly of a vehicle, comprising: a lithium ion battery cell (Vizzini, [0001, 0030]), a cell holder in which the battery cell is disposed (Vizzini, [0008]), the cell holder including: a holder base (frame plate 32) with one or more holder legs extending downwardly from the holder base (Vizzini, Figure 2 (34a, 34b, 36a, 36b)) and a plurality of cell vents extending through the holder base (Vizzini, [0035-0036], Claim 28) wherein the plurality of cell vents are configured to relieve a pressure of the battery cell (Vizzini, [0032]) and may have a rectangular and/or circular shape (Vizzini, [0033]) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Vizzini" . In regard to Claims 11, 17 and 20, Vizzini et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body; one or more wheels connected to the vehicle body; and a propulsion system operably connected to the one or more wheels configured to propel the vehicle, the propulsion system including at least one battery assembly (Vizzini, [0001-0002]), the battery assembly including: a lithium ion battery cell (Vizzini, [0030]), a cell holder in which the battery cell is disposed (Vizzini, [0008]), the cell holder including: a holder base (frame plate 32) with one or more holder legs extending downwardly from the holder base (Vizzini, Figure 2 (34a, 34b, 36a, 36b)) and a plurality of cell vents extending through the holder base (Vizzini, [0035-0036], Claim 28) wherein the plurality of cell vents are configured to relieve a pressure of the battery cell (Vizzini, [0032]) and may have a rectangular and/or circular shape (Vizzini, [0033]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference) , hereinafter "Vizzini" as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Hernandez et al. (US 20230070013 A1) , hereinafter "Hernandez". Vizzini and Hernandez et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders . In regard to Claims 2 and 8-9 , Vizzini et al. disclose the battery assembly of claim 1. Vizzini et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the cell vent extends through the holder base and use the holder legs to form a channel for the vented gas (Vizzini, [0034]) and that the dimension and spacing of the holder legs can be adjusted by the skilled artisan to optimize gas flow (Vizzini, [0034]), however, it is silent as to the vent extending through the holder leg and side walls of the cell holder. Hernandez et al. discloses a battery pack having a holder base (122) and holder side walls extending upwardly from the holder base (102a-d) that may be configured for venting cell vents (Hernandez, [0004-0005]) and also comprises holder legs (106) that are provided with cell venting (118) extending through them and this configuration is taught to achieve the benefit of facilitating vented gas flows along the base structure while simultaneously providing support (Hernandez, [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a configuration of a holder base with a cell vent extending through a holder leg as taught in Hernandez as an obvious variation to try for the skilled artisan of Vizzini as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hernandez and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference) , hereinafter "Vizzini" as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Hernandez et al. (US 20230070013 A1) , hereinafter "Hernandez". Vizzini and Hernandez et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders . Vizzini et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 11. Vizzini et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the cell vent extends through the holder base and use the holder legs to form a channel for the vented gas (Vizzini, [0034]) and that the dimension and spacing of the holder legs can be adjusted by the skilled artisan to optimize gas flow (Vizzini, [0034]), however, it is silent as to the vent extending through the holder leg and side walls of the cell holder. Hernandez et al. discloses a battery pack having a holder base (122) and holder side walls extending upwardly from the holder base (102a-d) that may be configured for venting cel vents (Hernandez, [0004-0005]) and also comprises holder legs (106) that are provided with cell venting (118) extending through them and this configuration is taught to achieve the benefit of facilitating vented gas flows along the base structure while simultaneously providing support (Hernandez, [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a configuration of a holder base with a cell vent extending through a holder leg as taught in Hernandez as an obvious variation to try for the skilled artisan of Vizzini as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hernandez and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference) , hereinafter "Vizzini" as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Von Benda et al. (US 5364713 A), hereinafter "Von Benda". Vizzini and Von Benda et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders . In regard to Claims 3-6 , Vizzini et al. disclose the battery assembly of claim 1. Vizzini et al. also discloses a battery cell including: an electrode stack and a cell housing in which the electrode stack is disposed (Vizzini, [0030-0031]) and a cell vent of the plurality of cell vents is disposed between terminals which extending from a stack base of the electrode stack (Vizzini, Figure 2 (22)) but is silent as to the cell comprising stack supports extending from a stack base of the electrode stack. However, this is nothing more than a variation of the cell used in the battery assembly and includes a structured cell known to the skilled artisan such as disclosed in Von Benda et al. which discloses a cell which comprises a housing (1) and electrode stack (15) inside the housing, a housing base (3) and stack supports (21)extending from a stack base of the electrode stack forming a cell gap between the electrode stack and a housing base of the cell housing (Von Benda, Figure 6, Page 7, Col 5-6) wherein the battery cell has a vertical height greater than a lateral width (Von Benda, Figure 1), which is taught as a configuration which produces a cell with increased service life (Von Benda, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a battery cell with the configuration taught in Von Benda to the battery assembly of Vizzini and dispose the cell vent between a stack support and a lateral end of the battery cell as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Von Benda an as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizzini et al. (WO2023062138A1 - US 20250007030 A1 cited for reference) , hereinafter "Vizzini" as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Von Benda et al. (US 5364713 A), hereinafter "Von Benda". Vizzini and Von Benda et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders . In regard to Claims 13-16 , Vizzini et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 1. Vizzini et al. also discloses a battery cell including: an electrode stack and a cell housing in which the electrode stack is disposed (Vizzini, [0030-0031]) and a cell vent of the plurality of cell vents is disposed between terminals which extending from a stack base of the electrode stack (Vizzini, Figure 2 (22)) but is silent as to the cell comprising stack supports extending from a stack base of the electrode stack. However, this is nothing more than a variation of the cell used in the battery assembly and includes a structured cell known to the skilled artisan such as disclosed in Von Benda et al. which discloses a cell which comprises a housing (1) and electrode stack (15) inside the housing, a housing base (3) and stack supports (21)extending from a stack base of the electrode stack forming a cell gap between the electrode stack and a housing base of the cell housing (Von Benda, Figure 6, Page 7, Col 5-6) wherein the battery cell has a vertical height greater than a lateral width (Von Benda, Figure 1), which is taught as a configuration which produces a cell with increased service life (Von Benda, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a battery cell with the configuration taught in Von Benda to the battery assembly of Vizzini and dispose the cell vent between a stack support and a lateral end of the battery cell as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Von Benda an as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim s 1-2 and 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3-4, 10-11, 18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/635781 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between Claims 1-2 and 11-12 of the current application and claims 1, 3-4, 10-11 and 18-20 is the use in a vehicle which is an obvious variation and is not patentably distinct . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430. 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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. /K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /JONATHAN CREPEAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,897 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,897 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,897 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725
