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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/01/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/01/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinker (US 5,506,067) in view of Amendola et al. (US 2012/0021303 A1; hereinafter “Amendola”).
Regarding claim 1, Tinker discloses a battery cell (Title) including a gas flow vent system (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated via vents 16; see also col. 7, lines 55-65 which describes receiving or releasing gas from the case), comprising:
a cell can (cell case 18) including a plurality of walls that define a cell receiving zone (as shown in Figs 1-4), the plurality of walls including a vent opening (74) and a gas flow guide surface (as shown in annotated Fig 4 below);
a cell arranged in the cell receiving zone (as shown in Fig 3); and
a spacer (72) arranged in the cell receiving zone adjacent the gas flow guide surface (as shown in Fig 4), the spacer including a first surface facing the cell and a second surface spaced from the gas flow guide surface (as shown in annotated Fig 4 below) so as to define a gas flow duct that channels gases from the cell to the vent opening (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated via vents 16 and spacers 72 forming the “gas flow duct”, and which allow gases to move around the cell and through the vents 16; see also col. 7, lines 55-65 which describes receiving or releasing gas from the case).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tinker discloses a battery cell (as noted above), but does not disclose the cell being a cell stack.
Amendola teaches metal-air battery systems (Title). Amendola teaches that the metal-air battery system comprises a stack of battery cells having airflow tunnels at the top of each battery cell (as shown in Fig 1).
Tinker and Amendola are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cells including gas flow vent systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely utilize a stack of battery cells, as suggested by Amendola, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use known components for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result, namely providing energy via metal-air batteries.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tinker discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Tinker further discloses that the spacer includes a first end and second end spaced from the first end by the first surface and the second surface (Tinker: as shown in annotated Fig 4 above).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinker (US 5,506,067) in view of Amendola et al. (US 2012/0021303 A1; hereinafter “Amendola”) and Wittmaier et al. (US 2019/0386362 A1; hereinafter “Wittmaier”).
Regarding claim 11, Tinker discloses a battery cell (Title) including a gas flow vent system (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated via vents 16; see also col. 7, lines 55-65 which describes receiving or releasing gas from the case), comprising:
a cell can (cell case 18) including a plurality of walls that define a cell receiving zone (as shown in Figs 1-4), the plurality of walls including a vent opening (74) and a gas flow guide surface (as shown in annotated Fig 4 above);
a cell arranged in the cell receiving zone (as shown in Fig 3); and
a spacer (72) arranged in the cell receiving zone adjacent the gas flow guide surface (as shown in Fig 4), the spacer including a first surface facing the cell and a second surface spaced from the gas flow guide surface (as shown in annotated Fig 4 above) so as to define a gas flow duct that channels gases from the cell to the vent opening (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated via vents 16 and spacers 72 forming the “gas flow duct”, and which allow gases to move around the cell and through the vents 16; see also col. 7, lines 55-65 which describes receiving or releasing gas from the case).
Tinker discloses a battery cell (as noted above), but does not disclose the cell being a cell stack.
Amendola teaches metal-air battery systems (Title). Amendola teaches that the metal-air battery system comprises a stack of battery cells having airflow tunnels at the top of each battery cell (as shown in Fig 1).
Tinker and Amendola are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cells including gas flow vent systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely utilize a stack of battery cells, as suggested by Amendola, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use known components for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result, namely providing energy via metal-air batteries.
Modified Tinker thus discloses a rechargeable energy storage system including the recited battery cell (as noted above), but does not disclose a vehicle comprising a body, a drive unit supported in the body, and the RESS supported at the body and operatively connected with the drive unit.
Wittmaier teaches a secondary cell (Title). Wittmaier teaches that metal-air batteries are of great practical importance in particular for mobile applications, e.g. as energy stores in electric vehicles ([0004]).
Wittmaier is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cells including gas flow vent systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the battery cell of modified Tinker should actually be used in some fashion in order to provide useful energy, i.e. batteries are not useful by themselves, and would thus find it obvious to utilize the battery cell in an electric vehicle, with the reasonable expectation that such use would be of great practical importance, as suggested by Wittmaier.
The skilled artisan would find it further obvious that, in utilize the battery cell in an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle would necessarily include a body, a drive unit supported in the body, and the RESS supported at the body and operatively connected with the drive unit in order to function as an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, modified Tinker discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Tinker further discloses that the spacer includes a first end and second end spaced from the first end by the first surface and the second surface (Tinker: as shown in annotated Fig 4 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a battery cell including a gas flow vent system comprising:
(claims 2 and 12) wherein the spacer includes at least one opening that passes through the first surface and the second surface; and
(claims 4 and 14) wherein the spacer includes a support, the support being arranged at the vent surface.
Tinker (US 5,506,067) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 2, 4, 12, and 14. Tinker discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Tinker does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations. To the contrary, Tinker explicitly discloses that the spacers (72) form the gas vent passage (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated via vents 16 and spacers 72 forming the “gas flow duct”, and which allow gases to move around the cell and through the vents 16; see also col. 7, lines 55-65 which describes receiving or releasing gas from the case), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon such structure and be directed towards either openings in the spacers or the support being arranged at the vent surface because the structure of Tinker already accomplishes the function of a gas vent passage via simpler structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu et al. (US 2022/0223972 A1) discloses a battery pack and vent gas passageway.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights