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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 7-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 & 9-20 are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 9/27/2024 information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. The reference with a line through it has not been considered by the examiner because a translation was not provided.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, in the reply filed on 8/11/2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal, between Species A & Species B, is on the grounds that —
“A check valve is a type of a one-way valve. Therefore, a check valve and a one-way valve necessarily cannot be mutually exclusive.”
Examiner agrees. The restriction of Species B is withdrawn.
The traversal, between Species A & Species C-D, is on the grounds that “there is not an undue burden in searching Species C and D”. Examiner disagrees. The species of A compared to C & D are independent or distinct because each species requires a different type of valve. These are mutually exclusive because the application fails to teach how the features of multiple, different species can be achieved simultaneously. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Therefore, there would be serious search and/or examination burden because a prior art search would require a different strategy and direction for each embodiment. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species C & D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Currently, claim 1 is generic / linking for all species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220042613A1 (Arteta).
Arteta teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A battery pack drain assembly (paragraphs 1 & 39: valve assembly / drain valve), comprising:
a drain housing (paragraph 39: housing 10) comprising an outer wall (paragraph 39: collar 14) that is annular and an inner wall (Figures A & B below) that is annular;
an annular channel (Figures A & B) defined between the outer wall and the inner wall; and
a primary drain valve (paragraph 39; Figures A & B: drain valve) disposed at least partially within the inner wall,
wherein the primary drain valve is configured to open when liquid in the drain housing reaches an upper portion of the inner wall (paragraphs 39-40; Figures A-B: coolant dissolves the deformable disc 120, allowing the spring to open the drain valve)
Figure A: Annotated Arteta Figure 3A Figure B: Annotated Arteta Figure 3B
PNG
media_image1.png
409
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
417
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Arteta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Arteta also teaches the following limitation of claim 2:
a shoulder extending from a top of the inner wall, wherein the shoulder and the inner wall define a valve seat (Figure C below)
Figure C: Annotated Arteta Figure 3B
PNG
media_image3.png
422
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 14, Arteta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Arteta also teaches the following limitation of claim 14:
the primary drain valve comprises a sensor that senses when liquid reaches the top of the inner wall
Arteta’s a deformable disc 120 senses fluid by dissolving in the fluid (paragraphs 39-40; Figures A-B above). Upon deformable disc 120 dissolution, the spring opens the drain valve.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220042613A1 (Arteta), with regard to claim 1, in view of US20210047817A1 (Berry).
With regard to claim 9, Arteta teaches the following limitations:
the drain housing comprises a lower housing (Figure D below) that includes the inner wall and the outer wall
Figure D: Annotated Arteta Figure 3B
PNG
media_image4.png
440
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Arteta fails to teach the following claim 9 limitations, which are taught by Berry:
the drain housing comprises… an upper housing (paragraph 39; figure 6: domed top 7)
Berry describes a filtering drain cover, with a domed top 7, to inhibit accumulation of debris on a drain under the drain cover (abstract; paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add Berry’s domed top 7 over Arteta’s drain valve, in order to inhibit accumulation of debris on Arteta’s drain valve.
With regard to claims 11-12, Arteta fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Berry:
Claim 11
the upper housing is mounted on the lower housing via a fastener (paragraph 35: pin or other retention barbs)
Claim 12
the upper housing is removably mounted on the lower housing via a fastener (paragraph 35: pin or other retention barbs to removably secure the drain cover to the drain)
Berry teaches securing the drain cover to the drain, with a pin or a retention barb, to resist dislodging the drain cover, but also allow removal of the drain cover (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to secure Berry’s domed top 7 on Arteta’s drain valve, with a pin or a retention barb, to resist dislodging the drain cover, but also allow removal of the drain cover.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220042613A1 (Arteta). Arteta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 13 states:
the inner wall is taller than the outer wall
Arteta’s collar 14 [claimed outer wall] is an inlet for directing coolant to the drain valve. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Arteta’s collar 14 height for attachment to surrounding structures, or for control of fluid level outside of the drain. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Here, there are no unexpected results of the relative heights of the inner wall and the outer wall. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the claimed relationship between their heights.
Claims 15 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130330576A1 (Kolden) in view of US20220042613A1 (Arteta).
Kolden teaches the following claim 15 limitations:
A battery pack assembly, comprising:
a battery pack housing (paragraph 40; figures 24 & 26; Figure D below: housing includes body 202) comprising a battery pack housing floor (paragraph 40; figures 24 & 26; Figure E below: bottom wall 204);
a plurality of battery cells disposed in the battery pack housing (paragraphs 4 & 40: battery cells are put in the housing inner cavity or cavity 214); and
a battery pack drain assembly (paragraph 42; figures 24 & 26; Figure E below: drain holes 196) embedded in the battery pack housing floor (204),
Figure E: Annotated Kolden Figure 24
PNG
media_image5.png
582
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kolden fails to teach the following claim 15 limitations, which are taught by Arteta:
the battery pack drain assembly (paragraphs 1 & 39: valve assembly / drain valve) comprises:
a drain housing (paragraph 39: housing 10) comprising an outer wall (paragraph 39: collar 14) that is annular and an inner wall (Figures A & B below) that is annular,
an annular channel (Figures A & B) defined between the outer wall and the inner wall, and
a primary drain valve (paragraph 39; Figures A & B: drain valve) disposed at least partially within the inner wall, and
wherein the primary drain valve is configured to open when liquid in the drain housing reaches a top of the inner wall (paragraphs 39-40; Figure B)
Figure A: Annotated Arteta Figure 3A Figure B: Annotated Arteta Figure 3B
PNG
media_image6.png
374
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
416
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Arteta is directed to a drain that allows fluid to drain from the battery pack housing, and also prevent outside fluid from entering. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to replace Kolden’s drain holes 196 with Arteta’s drain, in order both allow internal fluid to drain out and prevent outside fluid from entering.
With regard to claim 19, Berry teaches the following limitation:
the battery pack drain assembly is disposed at a lowermost portion of the battery pack housing floor
As illustrated in Figure E above, Berry’s drain holes 196 are at a lowest point of the body 202.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 3-6, 10, 16-18 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 allowed & allowable subject matter:
US20220042613A1 (Arteta) is the closest prior art of record for claim 3. Claim 3 recites:
an opening is formed in the shoulder, and wherein the primary drain valve passes through the opening
Artetta teaches the shoulder, but fails to teach the claimed opening in the shoulder (Figure E below):
Figure E: Annotated Artetta Figure 3B
PNG
media_image8.png
422
484
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would not have been obvious to add an opening in Artetta’s shoulder because (A) there would be no purpose in doing so (fluid enters Artetta’s drain through another opening) and (B) an opening could interfere with the operation of Artetta’s spring.
US20220042613A1 (Arteta) and US20130330576A1 (Kolden) are the closest prior art of record for claims 4-6, 10, & 16-18.
Claims 4, 10, 16, & 20 recite:
Claims 4, 10, & 16
a secondary drain valve disposed on the outer wall
Claim 20
a secondary drain valve that is a one-way valve disposed on the outer wall
Arteta doesn’t teach a secondary drain valve on the outer wall. Arteta doesn’t teach any reason for a secondary drain valve, especially a secondary drain valve in this location.
Kolden teaches multiple drain holes 196, each of which could include one of Arteta’s drain valves. A second of these drain valves can’t be the claimed “secondary drain valve” to a first of these drain valves, because it would not be “disposed on the outer wall”. Such an interpretation would ignore Kolden’s bottom wall 204, which is a separate component from the drain assembly and its outer wall.
Claims 5-6 & 17-18 are allowable due to their dependence on claims 4 or 16.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon, but made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20220090688A1 figures 5-6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights