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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 08/18/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 14 are amended. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are examined herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-5, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”) in view of US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, DeKeuster discloses a battery module 28 (“battery pack”) (Abstract; Figs. 4, 7-8) comprising a housing 62 having a bottom portion 74 and side walls 68, 70 extending upward around a periphery of the bottom portion (Fig. 4; [0044]), wherein an upper portion opening is formed at top ends of the side walls (Fig. 4; [0044]); a top cover 73 (“upper cover”) mounted on the upper portion opening of the housing ([0044], [0056]); multiple battery cells 90 sequentially arranged and mounted in the housing (Figs. 4, 6-8); and a first retaining wall 100, 120 (“first end plate”) and a second retaining wall 100, 124 (“second end plate”) (Figs. 7-8; [0053], [0056], [0058]-[0064]).
Both the first and second retaining walls are inserted into the housing separately from the multiple battery cells ([0056]), and first and second retaining walls are located at two end sides of the sequentially arranged multiple battery cells laterally fix the sequentially arranged multiple battery cells (Figs. 7-8).
DeKeuster is silent regarding a bearing plate mounted above the plurality of battery cells to define a lateral gas discharging passage; and a ventilation guide slot in an upper end of the first end plate, the bearing plate positioned on the ventilation guide slot to define a middle gas discharging passage with the middle gas discharging passage positioned between the lateral gas discharging passage and a vertical gas discharging passage for a fluid communication between the lateral gas discharging passage and the vertical gas discharging passage, with the vertical gas discharging passage defined by one of the side walls.
Miyawaki discloses an energy storage apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 2, 4). The energy storage apparatus comprises a plurality of energy storage devices 100 having discharge valves 170 disposed in a middle portion of the energy storage devices 100 (Fig. 4; [0062]-[0063]). Gas discharged from the discharge valves 170 is directed laterally in a lateral gas discharging passage formed by second guide portions 42 (“bearing plate”), to a ventilation guide slot, to a vertical gas discharging passage, then out discharge portion 50 (Fig. 7; [0054], [0070], [0079], [0083]). As shown in Fig. 7, second guide portions 42 are positioned on a ventilation guide slot, formed by upper portions of the first guide portions 41, to define a middle gas discharge passage. The vertical gas discharging passage is defined by one of the side walls of the housing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of a ventilation guide slot as claimed because Miyawaki teaches the flow configuration allows the discharge portion to be disposed at a position where a foreign substance minimally enters; even when a foreign substance such as rainwater enters the inside of the outer case, it is possible to block the movement of the foreign substance toward the energy storage device by the partition plate; and the gas is smoothly guided to the discharge portion through the flow passage, and is discharged to the outside ([0023]).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Miyawaki
Regarding claim 2, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 1. DeKeuster further discloses the retaining walls 100 may be constructed of any suitable material, for example a plastic ([0059]). Because the retaining walls 100 are formed of plastic, they are deemed inherently to provide the intended result of absorbing expansion deformations of the multiple battery cells while expanding and deforming. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 2. As shown in Fig. 6 of DeKeuster, front faces of the retaining walls 100 are in contact with two battery cells at two end sides of the sequentially arranged multiple battery cells respectively. Therefore, the retaining walls are inherently capable to fixing the sequentially arranged multiple battery cells in a horizontal direction (shown as the Z axis 40 in Fig. 6).
DeKeuster further discloses a circuit board 150 having a control circuit is provided on a reverse face of the first retaining wall 120 (Fig. 8; [0063]-[0064], [0068], [0077]) and a relay 132 is provided on a reverse face of the second retaining wall 124 (Fig. 7; [0062], [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 4. As shown in Fig. 7, the relay 132 comprises a relay plugin; and as shown in Fig. 8, the circuit board 150 comprises a plugin. As shown in Figs. 7-8, the relay plug is pluggable onto the circuit board plug.
Regarding claim 8, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 7. As shown in Fig. 4 of DeKeuster, a middle recessed portion is formed between cell terminals (shown as 112, 113 in Fig. 5) disposed on the top portion of each of the plurality of the multiple battery cells. An annotated portion of Fig. 4 is provided below. As surface of the middle recessed portion is provided with one or more cell vents 114 (“at least one seal-breakable opening”) configured to discharge a gas generated in the battery cell when broken. As shown in Fig. 4 of DeKeuster, when the battery cells are arranged and mounted in the housing, the middle recessed portions collectively form a battery top portion through-slot.
PNG
media_image2.png
241
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 8. DeKeuster discloses the first width side wall 62 is provided with vent 136 (Fig. 7) and Miyawaki discloses the discharge portion 50 is provided on a wall of body 12 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 13. DeKeuster discloses the retaining walls 100, 124 are utilized as a mount for one or more components of the battery module 28, such as a vent 136 (Fig. 7; [0062]). Therefore, a vertical gas discharge passage is provided within the housing 62 on an inner side of a first width side wall 62 (i.e. from cell vents 114 to vent 136).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”) in view of US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2017/0062783 A1 (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 6, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 5. DeKeuster is silent regarding the front faces of the retaining walls being provided with multiple reinforcing ribs to support the multiple battery cells and absorb expansion deformations of the multiple battery cells.
Kim discloses a rechargeable battery pack (Abstract) and teaches the main body 210 of the end plate 201 is provided with reinforcing ribs 218 (Figs 5, 8; [0110]-[0112]). The reinforcing ribs 218 reinforce the main body of the end plate and provide the main body with a uniform strength in the height direction ([0110]-[0112]). As shown in Fig. 8, the reinforcing ribs 218 result in corresponding ribs on the inner face of the end plate (i.e. the front faces). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the concept of the reinforcing ribs taught by Kim to reinforce the end plates and provide uniform strength in the height direction.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”) in view of US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of JP 2010-277735 A (“Osumi” – machine translation of record in parent application).
Regarding claim 11, modified DeKeuster discloses the battery pack of claim 8. Modified DeKeuster does not expressly disclose a bottom portion of the bearing plate is provided with a bearing plate bottom portion through-slot, and a distal end of the bearing plate bottom portion through-slot is provided with a blocking plate, so that when the bearing plate is mounted on the respective top portions of the plurality of battery cells, the bearing plate bottom portion through-slot is press-fitted with the battery top portion through-slot to form the lateral gas discharging passage.
Osumi discloses a power supply device 100 provided with a sealing member 20 with elasticity for airtightly communicating a gas duct 40 and a safety valve 3, and a pressing part 30 for pressing the sealing member 20 toward a sealing plate 4 side (Abstract; Figs. 4, 6, 8). Frame 50 has a through-slot on a bottom portion thereof (“bearing plate bottom portion through-slot”) (Figs. 2, 6, 8) that is pressed (i.e. press-fitted) into a slot formed by the battery cells and the end plates. The distal end of the bearing plate bottom portion through-slot is provided with a blocking plate (e.g. the side of the frame 50 that is closest to one of the end plates) (Figs. 6, 8). The gas duct 40 is formed in a hollow box shape, and communicates with a gas discharge path (not shown) in an airtight manner, and the gas is guided by the gas discharge path and safely discharged to the outside ([0019]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed features as Osumi teaches it prevents gas from leaking to an unintended portion ([0019], [0022], [0039], [0041]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”).
Regarding claim 14, Miyawaki discloses an energy storage apparatus 1 (“battery pack”) comprising a body 12 (“housing”) having a lower wall 15 (“bottom portion”) and side walls 14, 17 extending upward around a periphery of the lower wall 15 (Fig. 3); an opening of body 12 (“upper portion opening”) formed at top ends of the side walls (Figs. 3, 4); a lid body 11 (“cover”) mounted on the opening (Figs. 2, 4); a plurality of energy storage devices 100, which can be secondary batteries ([0058]), sequentially arranged and mounted in the body 12 (Fig. 4); and a partition plate 40a (“first end plate”) and a partition plate 40d (“second end plate”) (Figs. 2, 3).
The energy storage apparatus 1 further comprises third guide portions 43 (any of which corresponds to the “bearing plate”) mounted above top portions of the plurality of energy storage devices 100 (Figs. 6, 7; [0101]).
As shown in the annotated Fig. 7 below, upper portions of first guide portions 41 (“ventilation guide slot”) are formed in an upper end of the partition plate 40a. The mounted bearing plate is coupled to the ventilation guide slot (for example, by the lid body 11 and body 12 being coupled or welded to each other ([0050])) to define a middle gas discharging passage located between the lateral gas discharging passage and a vertical gas discharging passage. The lateral gas discharging passage is defined by the third guide portions 43 and the top portions of the plurality of energy storage devices 100. The vertical gas discharging passage is defined by a first width side wall of the side walls 14. This enables the lateral gas discharging passage to be in fluid communication with the vertical gas discharging passage.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Miyawaki
Miyawaki discloses the partition plates 40a, 40b are integrally formed with the body 12 and are disposed at two end sides of the plurality of energy storage devices 100 to laterally fix the plurality of energy storage devices 100 (Fig. 3; [0053], [0086]). Miyawaki does not expressly disclose the first end plate and the second end plate are mounted in the housing. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the first and second end plates in the housing (i.e. form them separate from the housing) for reasons including allowing for repair of such components or for ease of assembly. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 15, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 14. Miyawaki further discloses outer case 10 (which includes body 12 and partition walls 40a to 40d) is made of an insulating resin such as polycarbonate, polypropylene (PP) or the like ([0048]-[0049], [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 15. As shown in Fig. 4, front faces of the partition plate 40a and the partition plate 40d are in contact with two energy storage devices 100 at respective two end sides of the plurality of energy storage devices and are capable of fixing the plurality of energy storage devices in a horizontal direction (Y axis direction) ([0051]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 16. Miyawaki further discloses a control board (“circuit board”) disposed in equipment arranging space 22 (Fig. 2; [0047], [0070]). The control board monitors and controls states of the respective energy storage devices 100 ([0047]) and, therefore, inherently comprises a control circuit. While Miyawaki does not expressly disclose the control board is mounted on a reverse face of at least one of the partition walls 40a and 40d, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the control board as claimed because doing so amounts to selection of one of finite number of surfaces on which to mount the control board, each with a reasonable expectation of success.
Miyawaki does not expressly disclose a relay.
DeKeuster discloses a battery module 28 (Abstract). DeKeuster discloses a retaining wall may be used as a mount for one or more components of the battery module 28, such as a relay 132 (Fig. 7; [0062], [0064]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a relay because it involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to yield predictable results in view of DeKeuster. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 17. As shown in Fig. 7 of DeKeuster the relay 132 comprises a relay plugin. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the control board of Miyawaki with a plugin corresponding to the relay plugin, such that the relay plugin is pluggable on the plugin corresponding to the relay plugin on the control board to allow for control of the relay.
Regarding claim 19, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 18. Miyawaki further discloses regulating portions 45 (“bearing plate”) mounted above respective top portions of the plurality of energy storage devices 100 capable of fixing the sequentially arranged and mounted plurality of energy storage devices 100 in an upward direction (“a perpendicular direction of the housing”) (Fig. 6; [0105]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Miyawaki discloses the battery pack of claim 19. As shown in the annotated Fig. 7 below, Miyawaki discloses a middle recessed portion formed between protruding battery cell anode and battery cell cathode (i.e. terminals) on the top portions of each of the plurality of energy storage devices 100. (The terminals are omitted from Fig. 7; reference Fig. 4 for their position.) Each of the energy storage devices comprises a discharge valve 170 (“seal-breakable opening”) on a surface of the middle recessed portion (Figs. 4, 7; [0055], [0062]-[0063]). The plurality of middle recessed portions forms a battery top portion through-slot when the plurality of energy storage devices 100 are sequentially arranged and mounted in the housing.
PNG
media_image3.png
419
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Miyawaki
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,742,530 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Patent anticipate the instant claims.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,322,794 B2 in view of US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”), JP 2010-277735 A (“Osumi”) and US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) for the reason expressed in the art rejection above.
In regard to “the first end plate and the second end plate being insertable into the housing separately from the multiple battery cells,” the claimed limitation does not result in a structural distinction over the patented claim as this is a product- by-process limitation. In this regard, MPEP 2113 sets forth the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,177,525 B2 in view of US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”), JP 2010-277735 A (“Osumi”) and US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) for the reason expressed in the art rejection above.
In regard to “the first end plate and the second end plate being insertable into the housing separately from the multiple battery cells,” the claimed limitation does not result in a structural distinction over the patented claim as this is a product- by-process limitation. In this regard, MPEP 2113 sets forth the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,724,606 B2 in view of US 2016/0093849 A1 (“DeKeuster”), JP 2010-277735 A (“Osumi”) and US 2017/0033343 A1 (“Miyawaki”) for the reason expressed in the art rejection above.
In regard to “the first end plate and the second end plate being insertable into the housing separately from the multiple battery cells,” the claimed limitation does not result in a structural distinction over the patented claim as this is a product- by-process limitation. In this regard, MPEP 2113 sets forth the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment to the claims, applicant’s priority claim is acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 14, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of claim 1 over DeKeuster in view of Osumi and Miyawaki has been reconsidered and Osumi has been removed from the rejection. The arguments to Osumi regarding claim 1 are moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 to DeKeuster and Miyawaki have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Miyawaki, applicant argues Miyawaki does not teach or suggest modifying a separately inserted retaining wall of DeKeuster to include a ventilation guide slot in its upper end. However, the Office notes that Osumi discloses a ventilation guide slot formed at an upper end of the partition plate 40a (Fig. 7; [0079]-[0080]). Gas discharged from the discharge valves 170 is directed laterally in a lateral gas discharging passage formed by second guide portions 42 (“bearing plate”), to a ventilation guide slot, to a vertical gas discharging passage, then out discharge portion 50 (Fig. 7; [0054], [0070], [0079], [0083]). As shown in Fig. 7, second guide portions 42 are positioned on a ventilation guide slot, formed by upper portions of the first guide portions 41, to define a middle gas discharge passage. The vertical gas discharging passage is defined by one of the side walls of the housing. The structure of Miyawaki allows the discharge portion to be disposed at a position where a foreign substance minimally enters; even when a foreign substance such as rainwater enters the inside of the outer case, it is possible to block the movement of the foreign substance toward the energy storage device by the partition plate; and the gas is smoothly guided to the discharge portion through the flow passage, and is discharged to the outside ([0023]).
It appears applicant is implying particular structure to the end plate that is not presently recited. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the structure resulting in the ventilation guide slot, see Figs. 9A, 9B) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
