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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application
Examiners Comment
To improve clarity for the groupings listed in Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18, it would be beneficial to use the standard Markush grouping language of “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C." (MPEP 2173.05(h))
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“A retaining device that retains the plug in the first position, wherein the retaining device is configured to” in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“the retaining device is configured to release the plug when an environmental parameter of the battery exceeds a threshold” in claims 1, 8, and 15, with the further structural limitations “the retaining device is one of: (i) an adhesive material; (ii) a shear device; (iii) a retractable pin; and (iv) a trap door” in claims 3, 10, and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8-12, 14, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0163406).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Moon teaches a drain assembly (vent) for a battery pack for an electric vehicle (abstract). The battery is contained within a battery housing (structural vessel, [0035] and fig. 3 ref. #114). The drain assembly has a first section within the housing and a second section outside of the housing ([0043], and fig. 5A, see below), and a fluid path through the drain assembly for flow of a fluid from the battery ([0041], and fig. 5A, see below).
The drain assembly also includes a plug disposed at a first position out of the fluid path ([0041], and fig. 5A ref. #142) and a retaining device that retains the plug in the first position, wherein the retaining device is configured to release the plug when an environmental parameter of the battery exceeds a threshold ([0042], and fig. 5A ref. #146). There is also a biasing device that biases the plug towards a second position in the fluid path ([0041], and fig. 5A and 5B, ref. #144).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17, Moon also teaches that the retaining device releases the plug when a temperature at the drain assembly is at or above a temperature threshold, and that the retaining device is a shear device ([0042]).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Moon also teaches the biasing device is a spring within a chamber to a side of the fluid path ([0041]).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Moon also teaches the fluid path extends between an inlet within a housing of the battery and an outlet outside of the housing and the first position is in a chamber to one side of the inlet and the second position is in front of the inlet ([0041]-[0043], and fig. 5A and 5B, see below)
PNG
media_image2.png
612
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Moon also teaches that the fluid can be a gas (air, [0038]).
Claims 1-5, 7, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dallmer (German Patent Application Publication No. 102004007454). For prior art discussion see English translations for DE-102004007454-A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Dallmer teaches a drain assembly (drain pot, abstract, and fig. 1 ref. #49) in a housing (mortar, [0053]). The drain assembly includes a first section within the housing and a second section outside of the housing (fig. 1, see below), a fluid path for flow of a fluid (fig. 1, see below), a plug (disc-shaped part) disposed at a first position out of the fluid path ([0019], and fig. 1 ref. #52), a retaining device (attachment device) that retains the plug in the first position ([0014]), wherein the retaining device is configured to release the plug when an environmental parameter of the battery exceeds a threshold ([0015]), and a biasing device that biases the plug towards a second position in the fluid path (the plug falls into the fluid flow path and is held by biased to that position by the plug’s own mass) ([0019]).
The preambles “a drain assembly for a battery” and “a battery for a vehicle” 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 Dallmer teaches all of the claimed limitations of the drain assembly, Dallmer is still considered to anticipate the claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
486
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 9-10, Dallmer also teaches that the retaining device releases the plug when a temperature at the drain assembly is at or above a temperature threshold, and that the retaining device is an adhesive ([0014]-[0015]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Dallmer also teaches the biasing device is the mass of the plug ([0041], as the plug is capable of preventing smoke from leaking through the drain it must be held onto the second position by its own mass).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Dallmer also teaches the fluid path extends between an inlet within a housing of the battery and an outlet outside of the housing and the first position is in a chamber to one side of the inlet and the second position is in front of the inlet ([0014], and figs. 1 and 2, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
933
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Dallmer also teaches that the fluid can be an aqueous fluid (water, [0013]).
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.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0163406) in view of Kusunoki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0072184).
Moon is relied upon as described above.
Moon is silent to the drain assembly further comprising a drain valve in the fluid path at the outlet.
Kusunoki teaches a battery (energy storage apparatus) that includes an outer housing with a passageway to allow for the passage of gas out of the housing (abstract). Kusunoki also teaches that there is a drain valve (pressure valve) in the fluid path at the outlet ([0085] and fig. 5 ref. #150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the drain valve of Kusunoki in the outlet of Moon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it functions as a one-way valve. Which allows for fluids to pass out of the outlet without allowing for undesired fluids to infiltrate the battery housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788
04/14/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights