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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner et al. (US 20220045409 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 10/24/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Werner teaches a battery housing (pack) for a vehicle that contains a drainage device with a pathway (conduit), 24, where the device has a first end of the pathway located inside the housing and a second end of the pathway located outside the housing (Fig. 1, 0007). The drainage device further has a valve, 26, within the pathway that controls the fluid flow from one end to another (0008) which is controlled by an evaluation unit (processor), 38, that is able to open or close the drainage valve in response to both inside and outside battery conditions, such as moisture content, detected via multiple inside and outside sensors, such as 34 and 44 (0022 0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor is disposed proximate the second end outside the housing (0013). The criteria is met because proximate is a broad term and the sensor needs to measure data received from the atmosphere around the second end in order to make a proper decision on whether or not to open the valve.
Regarding claim 3, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 1 as described above and further teaches an interior sensor, 32, which measures a fill level of a fluid (0022).
Regarding claim 4, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 3 as described above and further teaches that the processor takes into account both the inner pressure and fluid level as well as the moisture content of the outside before opening the valve to ensure that condensation water does not enter the battery (0022 0023).
Regarding claim 6, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor in along the outside of the conduit, see Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Werner teaches a battery housing (pack) for a vehicle that contains a drainage device with a pathway (conduit), 24, where the device has a first end of the pathway located inside the housing and a second end of the pathway located outside the housing (Fig. 1, 0007). The drainage device further has a valve, 26, within the pathway that controls the fluid flow from one end to another (0008) which is controlled by an evaluation unit (processor), 38, that is able to open or close the drainage valve in response to both inside and outside battery conditions, such as moisture content, detected via multiple inside and outside sensors, such as 34 and 44 (0022 0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Werner teaches claim 8 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor is disposed proximate the second end outside the housing (0013). The criteria is met because proximate is a broad term and the sensor needs to measure data received from the atmosphere around the second end in order to make a proper decision on whether or not to open the valve.
Regarding claim 10, Werner teaches claim 8 as described above and further teaches an interior sensor, 32, which measures a fill level of a fluid (0022).
Regarding claim 11, Werner teaches claim 10 as described above and further teaches that the processor takes into account both the inner pressure and fluid level as well as the moisture content of the outside before opening the valve to ensure that condensation water does not enter the battery (0022 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Werner teaches claim 8 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor in along the outside of the conduit, see Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Werner teaches a battery housing (pack) for a vehicle that contains a drainage device with a pathway (conduit), 24, where the device has a first end of the pathway located inside the housing and a second end of the pathway located outside the housing (Fig. 1, 0007). The drainage device further has a valve, 26, within the pathway that controls the fluid flow from one end to another (0008) which is controlled by an evaluation unit (processor), 38, that is able to open or close the drainage valve in response to both inside and outside battery conditions, such as moisture content, detected via multiple inside and outside sensors, such as 34 and 44 (0022 0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Werner teaches claim 15 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor is disposed proximate the second end outside the housing (0013). The criteria is met because proximate is a broad term and the sensor needs to measure data received from the atmosphere around the second end in order to make a proper decision on whether or not to open the valve.
Regarding claim 17, Werner teaches claim 15 as described above and further teaches an interior sensor, 32, which measures a fill level of a fluid (0022). Werner further teaches that the processor takes into account both the inner pressure and fluid level as well as the moisture content of the outside before opening the valve to ensure that condensation water does not enter the battery (0022 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Werner teaches claim 15 as described above and further teaches that the exterior sensor in along the outside of the conduit, see Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 20220045409 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 10/24/2024) in view of Yebka et al. (US 20130143077 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 1 as described above but is silent to how the processor itself is being powered prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. Yebka teaches an electrochemical cell package with management circuitry, such as a controller, that monitors and controls various sensors (Yebka 0020). Yebka further teaches that the management circuitry has a dedicated battery in order to work (Yebka fig. 1, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and have the processor be powered by a dedicated battery in order to provide it with electricity to work.
Regarding claim 12, Werner teaches claim 8 as described above but is silent to how the processor itself is being powered prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. Yebka teaches an electrochemical cell package with management circuitry, such as a controller, that monitors and controls various sensors (Yebka 0020). Yebka further teaches that the management circuitry has a dedicated battery in order to work (Yebka fig. 1, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and have the processor be powered by a dedicated battery in order to provide it with electricity to work.
Regarding claim 18, Werner teaches claim 15 as described above but is silent to how the processor itself is being powered prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. Yebka teaches an electrochemical cell package with management circuitry, such as a controller, that monitors and controls various sensors (Yebka 0020). Yebka further teaches that the management circuitry has a dedicated battery in order to work (Yebka fig. 1, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and have the processor be powered by a dedicated battery in order to provide it with electricity to work.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 20220045409 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 10/24/2024) in view of Landvik et al. (US 20230011751 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Werner teaches the drain assembly of claim 1 as described above but is silent to the processor sending a signal to a vehicle diagnostics circuit, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. One of ordinary skill would then come across Landvik which teaches a vehicle with fluid sensors in the battery pack that actuate a valve in order to change the amount of fluid in the battery housing. Landvik further teaches that the processor (control unit) can send instructions to an operator or rescue personnel informing them about the condition of the battery in order to take the necessary steps to properly control the battery (Landvik 0075 0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and configure the processor to be capable of sending information and instructions to an operator via a dashboard, screen, or any other visual/auditory aid as described in Landvik in order to properly control the battery.
Regarding claim 14, Werner teaches claim 8 as described above but is silent to the processor sending a signal to a vehicle diagnostics circuit, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. One of ordinary skill would then come across Landvik which teaches a vehicle with fluid sensors in the battery pack that actuate a valve in order to change the amount of fluid in the battery housing. Landvik further teaches that the processor (control unit) can send instructions to an operator or rescue personnel informing them about the condition of the battery in order to take the necessary steps to properly control the battery (Landvik 0075 0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and configure the processor to be capable of sending information and instructions to an operator via a dashboard, screen, or any other visual/auditory aid as described in Landvik in order to properly control the battery.
Regarding claim 20, Werner teaches claim 15 as described above but is silent to the processor sending a signal to a vehicle diagnostics circuit, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. One of ordinary skill would then come across Landvik which teaches a vehicle with fluid sensors in the battery pack that actuate a valve in order to change the amount of fluid in the battery housing. Landvik further teaches that the processor (control unit) can send instructions to an operator or rescue personnel informing them about the condition of the battery in order to take the necessary steps to properly control the battery (Landvik 0075 0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the drain assembly of Werner and configure the processor to be capable of sending information and instructions to an operator via a dashboard, screen, or any other visual/auditory aid as described in Landvik in order to properly control the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights