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 11-16 are pending in the application
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 11-15, drawn to a battery system in the reply filed on 7/21/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the elements in invention I and II substantially overlap and so there is no serious search burden for the examiner. This is not found persuasive; the inventions I and II are distinct as the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product such as a process using single staged venting valve. As the inventions I, and II require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant argues that invention II overlap with the structure recited in invention III. This is not found persuasive, Invention II and III are divergent subject matter. Furthermore, the inventions in combination-sub combination relationship are distinct as the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the sub combination as claimed for patentability and that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations. In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because invention II does not require the specific dual-staged venting valve of invention III, a single staged venting valve can be used. The subcombination has separate utility such as the venting system can be used in venting of a fuel cell system. Applicant has not claimed a dual stage venting valve in invention II and the applicant has not persuasively shown how the structural elements recited in claims 11-15 and claims 16-20 overlap.
Applicant argues that the elements in invention II and III substantially overlap and so there is no serious search burden for the examiner. This is not found persuasive, the recited claims in inventions II and III require materially different, non-overlapping searches as since the inventions are in separate statutory categories, different classifications are required to search for each invention which will give different search results.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0028 of the instant application discloses “Examples of the SA includes … [give example compositions]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “one or more valves configured to selectively vent” and “monitoring system is configured to sense pressure” in claims 11 and 15 respectively.
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 § 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 13 and 14 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 13 recites “within an enclosure of the battery pack”, it is unclear if the “enclosure of the battery pack” is same as the battery enclosure recited in claim 11 or a different enclosure rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the suppressing agent is released into an enclosure of the battery pack”, it is unclear if the “enclosure of the battery pack” is same as the battery enclosure recited in claim 11 or a different enclosure rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermann (US PG Pub. 2012/0111444A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hermann discloses a battery system for an electric vehicle (para. 0002), comprising: a battery pack (para. 0012); a suppressing agent (SA) (thermal-control agent, water, para. 0012, 0031); and a venting system including one or more valves (vent, ref. 110, figure 1, para. 0030-0031) which may be bidirectional valves that operate about 1 psi (para. 0030). A bi-directional valve operating at about 1 psi is closed below that threshold and open above it and Hermann further discloses the battery enclosure (ref. 105, figure 1, para. 0018) is sealed (para. 0019) and the vents (ref. 110) are preferably implemented to allow gases to escape while inhibiting water egress during thermal event (para. 0030-0031) there by meeting the limitation, valves configured to selectively vent and seal a battery enclosure responsive to an operating condition of the battery enclosure and operation of the SA.
Regarding claim 12 Hermann discloses the battery pack comprises a plurality of battery cells housed inside the battery enclosure (ref. 105, figure 1, para. 0012, 0018).
Regarding claim 14, Hermann discloses the suppressing agent (thermal-control agent, water) is released into an enclosure of the battery pack during an increased temperature event (para. 0041)
Regarding claim 15, Hermann discloses comprising a monitoring system that includes at least one sensor, wherein the sensor of the monitoring system is configured to sense temperature within the battery enclosure of the battery system (para. 0026).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US PG Pub. 2012/0111444A1) in view of Cordani (US PG Pub. 2019/0319234 A1).
Hermann is relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Hermann fails to disclose SA is housed within
an SA enclosure that is located either within an enclosure of the battery pack or outside the enclosure of the battery pack.
Cordani discloses a battery pack (ref. 12, figure 1) provided with a suppressing agent (fire suppressant) which get instantaneously released at the core of the thermal event (para. 0007). Cordani further discloses SA is housed within an SA enclosure (ref. 18, figure 1) and is located outside the enclosure of the battery pack (figure 1, para. 0020). Cordani further discloses the fire suppressant container chamber holding only enough fire suppressant as necessary to fill the voided space in the battery module cell provides a compact and lightweight system (para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to house the suppressing agent of Hermann within an enclosure as taught by Cordani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to house the SA in an enclosure to provide a compact and lightweight system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya Mathew Examiner, Art Unit 1788
08/12/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights