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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/531937 filed on 12/7/2023. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 2: In line 3 “one of the air inlets”
Regarding to claims 4, 5: In line 1 “The battery module according to claim [[1]]2,”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al. (JP 2013114952 A) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2003100273 A). The English translation of JP 2013114952 A and JP 2003100273 A are used as reference as attached.
Regarding to claims 1, 10, 12: Kume et al. disclose a power supply device (par. 1). A vehicle comprises the power supply device (equivalent to a battery pack) (par. 2), comprising a battery block (10) (par. 6, fig. 1) (equivalent to a battery module). The battery block (10), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (1) (par. 6, fig. 1), the plurality of battery cells (1) being arranged side by side (fig. 1), and a safety valve (3)(equivalent to a pressure relief valve) (par. 6, fig. 1) being arranged on a top of each of the battery cells (1);
an end plate (7) (par. 6, fig. 1), the end plate being arranged on an end portion of the plurality of battery cells (1), and the end plate (7) being provided with an end plate pipe (8) (equivalent to a first exhaust channel) (par. 6, fig. 1) therein; and
a safety valve duct (24) (equivalent to a cover body) (par. 10, fig. 1) covering the safety valves (3), the safety valve duct (24) being arranged in an arrangement direction of the plurality of battery cells (1) (the safety valve duct (24) forms a second exhaust channel), and the safety valve duct (24) being in communication with the end plate pipe (8) (par. 10, fig. 1).
Kume et al. fail to explicitly disclose the cover body being snap-fitted onto the plurality of pressure relief valves. However, Masuda et al. disclose a power supply device (par. 1). The power supply device comprises a pressing member (15) (equivalent to a cover body) covering gas relief holes (10) (equivalent to pressure relief valves) (par. 40, fig. 6). A locking claw (19) is engaged (equivalent to snap-fitted) with the outer edge of the pressing member (15) and makes the pressing member (15) fit on the gas relief holes (10) (par. 40, fig. 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the locking claw (19) of Masuda et al. to fix the safety valve duct (24) of Kume et al. because Masuda et al. teach that this method can suppress cost increases (par. 9).
Regarding to claim 2: Kume et al. disclose the end plate pipe (8) comprises an inner cavity and an inlet (8a) (equivalent to an air inlet) (par. 25, fig. 6) and a connecting port (8b) (equivalent to an air outlet) (par. 26, fig. 6) in communication with the inner cavity; and
two ends of the safety valve duct (24) each are connected with one of the inlets (par. 40, fig. 13).
Regarding to claim 3: Kume et al. disclose an electrode terminal (5) (equivalent to a wire harness) (par. 17, fig. 3), the electrode terminal (5) being arranged outside the safety valve duct (24) and being electrically connected with the battery cell (1) (par. 23).
Regarding to claim 4: Kume et al. disclose the inlet (8a) is arranged staggered with respect to the connecting port (8b) (fig. 6)
Regarding to claim 8: Kume et al. disclose the plurality of safety valves (3) are arranged linearly (fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 9: Kume et al. disclose an insulating separators (6) (equivalent to an insulation layer) is sandwiched between adjacent battery cells (1) (par. 16, fig. 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al. (JP 2013114952 A) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2003100273 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ackermann (US 20150064527).
Regarding to claim 5: Kume et al. disclose a power supply device as described in paragraph 3 above. Kume et al. fail to explicitly disclose a snap is arranged in a position of the end plate close to the air inlet; and the two ends of the cover body are connected with the air inlet through the snap. However, Ackermann discloses an energy store covering module for covering a cell of an electrochemical energy store unit (abstract). The energy store covering module (100) (equivalent to the cover body), covering a cell blow-out diaphragm of the cell (par. 33, fig. 2, 3), comprises a detent (150) and a snap-fit hook (160) (par. 36, fig. 2). The detent (150) and the snap-fit hook (160) form one connecting element for the secure and stable connection of module (100) (par. 36, fig. 3) (the snap-fit hook (160) is equivalent to a snap). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detent (150) and the snap-fit hook (160) of Ackermann to fix the safety valve duct (24) to the inlet (8a) of Kume et al. because Ackermann teaches that this can provide a flexible covering (par. 15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al. (JP 2013114952 A) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2003100273 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Frutschy et al. (US 20170062884 A1).
Regarding to claim 5: Kume et al. disclose a seal opening (21) (equivalent to a second sealing gasket) is arranged between the safety valve duct (24) and the battery cells (1) (par. 20, fig. 2). Kume et al. fail to explicitly disclose a first sealing layer is arranged between the two ends of the cover body and the end plate. However, Frutschy et al. disclose an improved energy storage device (abstract). The energy storage device comprises a annular seal (195) (equivalent to a first sealing layer) arranged between an air outlet (158) and an air inlet (156). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the annular seal (195) of Frutschy et al. between two end of the safety valve duct (24) and the end plate (7) of Kume et al. because Frutschy et al. teach that this can provide an air-tight sealing (par. 52).
Claims 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al. (JP 2013114952 A) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2003100273 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chu et al. (US 20210328281 A1).
Regarding to claim 7: Kume et al. disclose a power supply device as described in paragraph 3 above. Kume et al. fail to explicitly disclose a side plate, the side plate being arranged on a side surface of the battery body in the arrangement direction of the plurality of battery cells. However, Chu et al. disclose a battery pack (abstract). The battery pack comprises an upper box (12) and a lower box (13) (par. 61, fig. 1) (the upper box (12) includes side plates, the side plate being arranged on a side surface of the plurality of battery cells (3)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the upper box (12) and the lower box (13) Chu et al. to pack the battery block (10) of Kume et al. because Chu et al. teach that the upper box (12) and the lower box (13) can prevent water vapor from impacting the battery cells (3) (par. 61).
Regarding to claim 11: Kume et al. disclose a gas duct (30) (equivalent to a third exhaust channel), and the safety valve duct (24) being in communication with the gas duct (30) through the end plate pipe (8) (par. 22-25, fig. 4). Kume et al. fail to explicitly disclose a tray, the battery module being fixed to the tray; and the tray being provided with a third exhaust channel therein side plate. However, Chu et al. disclose a battery pack (abstract). The battery pack comprises battery cells (3), an upper box (12), a lower box (13) (equivalent to a tray) (par. 61, fig. 1), and a connecting channel (22) (equivalent to the third exhaust channel). The battery cells (3) and the connecting channel (22) are fixed to the lower box (13) (fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the upper box (12) and the lower box (13) Chu et al. to pack the battery block (10) of Kume et al. because Chu et al. teach that the upper box (12) and the lower box (13) can prevent water vapor from impacting the battery cells (3) (par. 61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights