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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed February 29, 2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 have been canceled. Claims 17-36 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed November 27, 2024 (two separate filings), April 24, 2025 and May 4, 2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Since this application is a continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53 (b), the examiner has considered information, which has been considered by the Office in the parent applications. Such information need not be resubmitted in the continuing application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent.
Copies of references cited by applicant in accordance with MPEP § 609, § 707.05(b) and § 708.02 are not furnished to applicant with the Office action. Additionally, copies of references cited in continuation applications if they had been previously cited in the parent application are not furnished.
Drawings
The drawings received February 29, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received February 29, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the status of the parent application identified in the first sentence of the instant application should be updated since it has matured into a U.S. patent. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The current abstract reflects a different aspect of the invention from that of the claimed invention and should be amended to reflect the details of the invention claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 29-36 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 29, 30, 31, 32 and 36 explicitly recite “the membrane” which, for consistency, should be “the flexible membrane” (claims 30-36 being dependent upon claim 29, objected to as a collective for the same reasons). 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.
Claims 23-28 use the words “means for puncturing” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses this generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17-19, 23-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN112303308A).
As to claim 17, Zhang discloses a battery system comprising:
a battery including:
a scaled enclosure defining a cavity (case of the battery pack 1), the enclosure including an end wall 11 with an opening formed in the end wall;
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery pack 1); and
a diaphragm (film 124) coupled to the end wall and covering the opening; and
a puncture pin 1212 disposed outside of the enclosure and adjacent the diaphragm 124 such that when pressure increases in the cavity, the diaphragm 124 flexes outward and is punctured by the puncture pin 1212 (Figs. 1-10 and para. [0062] which states an explosion-proof membrane 124 is disposed on the upper port 1211 of the first connector 121 and seals the upper port 1211, and the explosion-proof membrane 124 is located above the ejector pin 1212 in the vertical direction Z. When a large amount of gas is generated inside the battery pack 1, the large amount of gas will press down on the explosion-proof membrane 124 until the explosion-proof membrane 124 is punctured by the ejector pin 1212, thereby realizing the connection between the first connector 121 and the inside of the box, and thus expelling the gas inside the box).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, an exhaust duct 121 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the exhaust duct 121 to direct pressurized fluid from the
cavity of the battery pack 1 case to a downstream location when the diaphragm 124 is punctured via pin 1212 (Fig. 5 above for example).
As to claim 19, the puncture pin 1212 is disposed inside of the exhaust duct 121 (Figs 1-10).
As to claim 23, Zhang discloses a battery for an electric vehicle (which can encompass any number of vehicles including land vehicles and aircraft, further noting that the phrase “for an aircraft” is held to be intended use), the battery comprising:
a housing (case of the battery pack 1) including a wall 11 having an opening defined therein;
a battery cell disposed in the housing (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery pack 1);
an exhaust duct 121 coupled to the opening;
a flexible membrane 124; and
means for puncturing 1212 the flexible membrane 124, the flexible membrane 124 to extend toward the means for puncturing 1212 in response to an increase in pressure in the housing, the means for puncturing 1212 to puncture the flexible membrane 124 when at least a portion of the flexible membrane 124 engages the means 1212 for puncturing to cause the pressure to be released from the housing to a location outside the aircraft via the exhaust duct 121 (Figs. 1-10 and para. [0062] which states an explosion-proof membrane 124 is disposed on the upper port 1211 of the first connector 121 and seals the upper port 1211, and the explosion-proof membrane 124 is located above the ejector pin 1212 in the vertical direction Z. When a large amount of gas is generated inside the battery pack 1, the large amount of gas will press down on the explosion-proof membrane 124 until the explosion-proof membrane 124 is punctured by the ejector pin 1212, thereby realizing the connection between the first connector 121 and the inside of the box, and thus expelling the gas inside the box).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, the means for puncturing 1212 is external to the housing (Figs. 1-10).
As to clam 25, the means for puncturing 1212 is carried by the exhaust duct 121 (Figs. 1-10).
As to claim 26, the means for puncturing 1212 is coupled to an interior surface of the exhaust duct 121 (Figs. 1-10).
As to claim 27, the flexible membrane 124 is disposed at an end of the exhaust duct 121 coupled to the opening of wall 11 (Figs. 1-10).
As to claim 28, the exhaust duct 121 has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 8 for example).
As to claim 29, Zhang discloses a battery system comprising:
a battery 1 including:
an enclosure defining a cavity, the enclosure including an end wall 11 with an opening formed in the end wall; and
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery pack 1); and
a flexible membrane 124 coupled to the end wall 11 and sealing the opening, the membrane 124 to rupture when a pressure inside the cavity exceeds a threshold (Figs. 1-10 and para. [0062] which states an explosion-proof membrane 124 is disposed on the upper port 1211 of the first connector 121 and seals the upper port 1211, and the explosion-proof membrane 124 is located above the ejector pin 1212 in the vertical direction Z. When a large amount of gas is generated inside the battery pack 1, the large amount of gas will press down on the explosion-proof membrane 124 until the explosion-proof membrane 124 is punctured by the ejector pin 1212, thereby realizing the connection between the first connector 121 and the inside of the box, and thus expelling the gas inside the box).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 30, a vent 121 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the vent 121 to direct pressurized fluid from the cavity to a downstream location when the membrane 124 is ruptured (Figs. 1-10).
As to claim 31, the membrane 124 is disposed in the vent (Figs. 1-10).
As to claim 32, a pin 1212 disposed in the vent and adjacent the membrane 124 such that when the pressure inside the cavity increases, the membrane 124 flexes away from the opening and is punctured by the pin 1212 to cause the membrane 124 to rupture (Figs. 1-10 and para. [0042] which states that when massive gas is generated in the case of the battery pack 1, the gas extrudes down the film 124 until the film is pierced by the pin 1212 to discharge gas in the case).
As to claim 35, the flexible membrane 124 is coupled to a side of the end wall 11 and includes portions including when extended, that render it external to the cavity (Figs. 1-10, para. [0042]).
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.
Claims 22 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN112303308A) as applied to claims 18 and 30, respectively above, and further in view of Heim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0032219).
Zhang is silent regarding the material of the film 124 and therefore does not teach that the film 124, the flexible membrane of claims 22 and 36, is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
The selection of PTFE as a suitable vent membrane in battery systems has long since been known in the art and would have been readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Heim, drawn to the same field of endeavor – venting designs for battery systems, recognized the benefit of selecting the flexible membrane to be polytetrafluoroethylene (paras. [0020]-[0023]) as a suitable gas permeable, water pressure resistant material).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Zhang to be a suitable material such as PTFE as taught by Heim as such materials were well recognized in the art as flexible membranes for vent structures having good flexibility, responsiveness to pressure and water resistance. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 17-20, 22-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindstrom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0140235) in view of Kluser et al. (DE 102018114439A1).
As to claim 17, Lindstrom teaches of a battery system comprising:
a battery 12 including:
a scaled enclosure defining a cavity (case of the battery 12), the enclosure including an end wall 36 with an opening formed in the end wall;
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery 12); and
a vent 14 coupled to the end wall 11 and covering the opening (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), for example).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
379
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, an exhaust duct 26 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the exhaust duct 26 to direct pressurized fluid from the
cavity of the battery pack 12 case to a downstream location when the vent 14 vents (Fig. 2(b) for example).
As to claim 20, Lindstrom teaches the battery is a first battery, the enclosure is a first enclosure, the opening is a first opening, and the exhaust duct 26 is a first exhaust duct, the battery system further including:
a second battery 12; a second exhaust duct 26 extending from a second enclosure of the second battery 12 at a second opening (vent 14) in the second enclosure; and a manifold 24 coupling the first exhaust duct 26 and the second exhaust duct 26 (Fig. 2(b)).
PNG
media_image5.png
405
872
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, Lindstrom teaches of a battery system (noting that the phrase “for an aircraft” is held to be intended use) comprising:
a battery 12 including:
a scaled enclosure defining a cavity (case of the battery 12), the enclosure including an end wall 36 with an opening formed in the end wall;
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery 12); and
a vent 14 coupled to the end wall 11 and covering the opening (Fig. 2(a), for example).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
379
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, the vent 14 is external to the housing (Figs. 2(a)-(2(b)).
As to claim 27, the vent 14 is disposed at an end of the exhaust duct 26 coupled to the opening of wall 36 (Figs. 2(a)-2(b)).
As to claim 28, the exhaust duct 26 has a cylindrical shape (Figs. 2(a)-2(b) for example).
As to claim 29, Lindstrom discloses a battery system comprising:
a battery 12 including:
an enclosure defining a cavity, the enclosure including an end wall 36 with an opening formed in the end wall; and
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery 12); and
a vent 14 coupled to the end wall 36 and sealing the opening, the vent 14 designed to respond when a pressure inside the cavity exceeds a threshold (Figs. 2(a)-2(b)).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
379
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 30, a vent 14 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the vent 14 to direct pressurized fluid from the cavity to a downstream location (Figs. 2(a)-2(b)).
As to claim 34, Lindstrom teaches the battery is a first battery, the enclosure is a first enclosure, the opening is a first opening, and the exhaust duct 26 is a first exhaust duct, the battery system further including:
a second battery 12; a second exhaust duct 26 extending from a second enclosure of the second battery 12 at a second opening (vent 14) in the second enclosure; and a manifold 24 coupling the first exhaust duct 26 and the second exhaust duct 26 (Fig. 2(b).
Lindstrom does not teach of the vent including a diaphragm coupled to the end wall and puncture pin disposed outside the enclosure and adjacent the diaphragm such that the diaphragm flexes outward in the presence of increased internal pressure and is punctured by the puncture pin (claims 17-18); where the puncture pin is disposed inside the exhaust duct (claim 19); the vent including a flexible membrane and means for puncturing the flexible membrane, the flexible membrane extends towards the means for puncturing in response to increased internal pressure and is punctured by the means for puncturing to cause the pressure to be released from the housing to a location outside of the aircraft (claim 23); the means for puncturing disposed external of the housing (claim 24); the means for puncturing is carried by the duct (claim 25) further coupled to the interior surface of the duct (claim 26); the flexible membrane is disposed at an end of the duct coupled to the opening of wall 36 (claim 27); a flexible membrane coupled to the end wall to rupture when a pressure inside the battery exceeds a threshold (claims 29-30); the membrane disposed in the vent (claim 31); a pin disposed in the vent adjacent the membrane to cause the membrane to rupture via the pin when the membrane flexes away from the opening (claim 32); the membrane coupled to a side of the end wall of the cavity (claim 35); of the membrane being polytetrafluoroethylene (claims 22 and 36).
Kluser is directed to the same field of endeavor, venting battery enclosures using various vent designs wherein the vent responds to an increase in pressure within the enclosure to open/rupture and depressurize the battery pack via venting.
As to claim 17, Kluser discloses a vent structure for a battery system comprising:
a vent structure 100 provided in an opening of a battery wall enclosure 11, the vent including a diaphragm (film 120) coupled to the end wall and covering the opening; and
a puncture pin 142 disposed outside of the enclosure and adjacent the diaphragm 120 such that when pressure increases in the cavity, the diaphragm 120 flexes outward and is punctured by the puncture pin 142 (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 18, a vent 10 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the vent 100 to direct pressurized fluid from the cavity to a downstream location when the membrane 120 is ruptured (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 22, the membrane is PTFE (para. [0013]).
As to claim 23, Kluser discloses a battery for an electric vehicle, the battery comprising:
a vent 100 with a flexible membrane 120; and
means for puncturing 142 the flexible membrane 120, the flexible membrane 120 to extend toward the means for puncturing 142 in response to an increase in pressure in the housing, the means for puncturing 142 to puncture the flexible membrane 120 when at least a portion of the flexible membrane 120 engages the means 142 for puncturing to cause the pressure to be released from the housing to a location outside the aircraft via the exhaust duct 121 (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 24, the means for puncturing 142 is external to the housing (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 29, Kluser discloses a battery system comprising:
a flexible membrane 120 coupled to the end wall 11 and sealing the opening, the membrane 120 to rupture when a pressure inside the cavity exceeds a threshold (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 30, a vent 10 extending from the enclosure at the opening, the vent 100 to direct pressurized fluid from the cavity to a downstream location when the membrane 120 is ruptured (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 31, the membrane 120 is disposed in the vent (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 32, a pin 142 disposed in the vent and adjacent the membrane 120 such that when the pressure inside the cavity increases, the membrane 120 flexes away from the opening and is punctured by the pin 142 to cause the membrane 120 to rupture (Figs. 1-13).
As to claim 35, the flexible membrane 120 is coupled to a side of the end wall 11 and external to the cavity (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 36, the membrane is PTFE (para. [0013]).
Lindstrom teaches of a vent port with the core functionality of the vent port 14 being to purge pressurized gas from within the battery to and external exhaust system. Any number of conventional vent designs would have been reasonably applicable to the core invention of Lindstrom with a reasonable expectation that such known vent structures would provide the necessary structure for purging pressurized gas from within the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vent of Lindstrom to have the vent structure of Kluser including a PTFE membrane and adjacent puncture pin as discussed above since it would have provided a conventional vent designs reasonably predictable expectation that the vent structure of Kluser to Lindstrom would have provided the a good vent structure for purging pressurized gas from within the battery.
The structure of Kluser provides a vent structure attached to an opening of a battery housing wall 11 to effectively vent pressurized gases within a given battery pack and it would have been reasonably predictable to employ the vent structure of Kluser as the vent 14 of Lindstrom as an effective and suitable vent design for the battery packs of Lindstrom. Upon modifying the vent 14 of Lindstrom with the vent of Kluser, in the context of the system of Lindstrom, the vent region where the pin 142 resides would be disposed inside of the exhaust duct 121 (claim 19); carried by the exhaust duct 121 (claim 25); coupled to an interior surface of the exhaust duct 121 (claim 26) and the membrane disposed at an end of the exhaust duct 121 coupled to the opening of wall 11 (claim 27).
Claims 23-28 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindstrom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0140235) in view of Kluser et al. (DE 102018114439A1) and either Jones et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,508,970) or Liske et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0107756).
In the alternative that patentable weight is given to the battery of claims 23-28 in the context of an aircraft, the following rejection applies.
As to claim 23, Lindstrom teaches of a battery system (noting that the phrase “for an aircraft” is held to be intended use) comprising:
a battery 12 including:
a scaled enclosure defining a cavity (case of the battery 12), the enclosure including an end wall 36 with an opening formed in the end wall;
a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (not shown but understood to be within the enclosure of the battery 12); and
a vent 14 coupled to the end wall 11 and covering the opening (Fig. 2(a), for example).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
379
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, the vent 14 is external to the housing (Figs. 2(a)-(2(b)).
As to claim 27, the vent 14 is disposed at an end of the exhaust duct 26 coupled to the opening of wall 36 (Figs. 2(a)-2(b)).
As to claim 28, the exhaust duct 26 has a cylindrical shape (Figs. 2(a)-2(b) for example).
Lindstrom does not teach of the vent including a flexible membrane and means for puncturing the flexible membrane, the flexible membrane extends towards the means for puncturing in response to increased internal pressure and is punctured by the means for puncturing to cause the pressure to be released from the housing to a location outside of the aircraft (claim 23); the means for puncturing disposed external of the housing (claim 24); the means for puncturing is carried by the duct (claim 25) further coupled to the interior surface of the duct (claim 26); the flexible membrane is disposed at an end of the duct coupled to the opening of wall 36 (claim 27).
Kluser is directed to the same field of endeavor, venting battery enclosures using various vent designs wherein the vent responds to an increase in pressure within the enclosure to open/rupture and depressurize the battery pack via venting.
As to claim 23, Kluser discloses a battery for an electric vehicle, the battery comprising:
a vent 100 with a flexible membrane 120; and
means for puncturing 142 the flexible membrane 120, the flexible membrane 120 to extend toward the means for puncturing 142 in response to an increase in pressure in the housing, the means for puncturing 142 to puncture the flexible membrane 120 when at least a portion of the flexible membrane 120 engages the means 142 for puncturing to cause the pressure to be released from the housing to a location outside the aircraft via the exhaust duct 121 (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 24, the means for puncturing 142 is external to the housing (Figs. 1-3).
Lindstrom teaches of a vent port with the core functionality of the vent port 14 being to purge pressurized gas from within the battery to and external exhaust system. Any number of conventional vent designs would have been reasonably applicable to the core invention of Lindstrom with a reasonable expectation that such known vent structures would provide the necessary structure for purging pressurized gas from within the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vent of Lindstrom to have the vent structure of Kluser including a PTFE membrane and adjacent puncture pin as discussed above since it would have provided a conventional vent designs reasonably predictable expectation that the vent structure of Kluser to Lindstrom would have provided the a good vent structure for purging pressurized gas from within the battery.
The structure of Kluser provides a vent structure attached to an opening of a battery housing wall 11 to effectively vent pressurized gases within a given battery pack and it would have been reasonably predictable to employ the vent structure of Kluser as the vent 14 of Lindstrom as an effective and suitable vent design for the battery packs of Lindstrom. Upon modifying the vent 14 of Lindstrom with the vent of Kluser, in the context of the system of Lindstrom, the vent region where the pin 142 resides would be carried by the exhaust duct 121 (claim 25); coupled to an interior surface of the exhaust duct 121 (claim 26) and the membrane disposed at an end of the exhaust duct 121 coupled to the opening of wall 11 (claim 27).
As to the battery specifically used in an aircraft, the modification of Lindstrom would have been obvious in light of the additional teachings of Jones (claim 23). Jones is drawn to the same field of endeavor, improving battery systems by including a venting feature to the battery enclosure. Jones further recognized that such vent designs and battery systems were suitable and conventionally employed in vehicle systems. The result improves the safety of the battery-powered device.
Jones teaches of a battery system for an aircraft (col. 2, ll. 35-49; col. 3, ll. 41-51) comprising: a battery including: a scaled enclosure 410 defining a cavity 422, the enclosure including an end wall 426 with an opening 427 formed in the end wall 426; a battery cell disposed in the cavity of the enclosure (understood to be within the enclosure of the battery pack); and a vent valve coupled to the end wall 426 and covering the opening 427 (Fig. 5, for example).
PNG
media_image6.png
318
463
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
336
635
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
346
420
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Liske is drawn to the same field of endeavor, energy storage systems for powering devices where the systems have improved safety. Liske teaches of an aircraft wherein in the aircraft is powered by an energy storage system and the energy storage system includes venting of plural modules in combination with exhaust outlets and manifolds to effectively regulate the battery system and improve safety of the aircraft (abstract, examples). Liske goes on to teach that the application of lithium ion battery systems in aircraft were known as they were understood to provide high energy density, power density and good cycle life. Liske further goes on to teach that such systems ideally include designs for improved safety via venting.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the battery system of Lindstrom in any number of particular systems including vehicles such as aircraft as shown by either Jones of Liske since it would have provided a robust battery system having high energy density, power density and good cycle life for aircraft applications while also having excellent safety designs for venting pressure/gas from the battery systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 33 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:
a. None of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the puncture pin of claim 23 wherein the puncture pin includes a plurality of support pins, the puncture pin coupled to the exhaust duct via the support pins.
For example, the various vent structures cited above, teach of a puncture pin but does not teach or suggest the puncture pin includes a plurality of support pins, the puncture pin coupled to the exhaust duct via the support pins.
b. None of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the puncture pin of claim 33 wherein the puncture pin is coupled to a surface of the vent via a plurality of support pins.
For example, the various vent structures cited above, teach of a puncture pin but does not teach or suggest the puncture pin is coupled to a surface of the vent via a plurality of support pins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN203589146U discloses a battery system with plural batteries 12, ducts and common manifold 2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0036023 discloses a battery with an exhaust duct 162/170 for venting the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights