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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,597,674 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,925 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,106 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,116 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,288,894 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,909,014 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim encompasses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casey (US 2022/0099205 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Casey discloses an apparatus comprising: a cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (paragraph 2) within an enclosure configured to accommodate the cell stack therein, wherein a rupture portion 100, configured to be rupturable by internal pressure of the enclosure, is disposed on at least one surface of the enclosure (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 2, Casey discloses that the rupture portion has a rupture groove (tearing edge) formed to be thinner than other portions of the rupture portion (paragraphs 57 & 62).
Regarding claim 3, Casey discloses a blade 140 disposed on the at least one surface of the case, the blade configured to rupture the rupture portion (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 4, Casey discloses that the rupture portion is configured to be deformed in shape by the internal pressure and to come into contact with the blade 140 (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 5, Casey discloses a rupture sheet 110 including a first frame 124, and the rupture portion disposed in the first frame; and a cutter including a second frame 130, and the blade disposed in the second frame 130, wherein the cutter is disposed on the outside of the rupture sheet 110, and the blade 140 is disposed in a position corresponding to that of the rupture portion (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 6, Casey discloses that the blade 140 includes a plurality of blades, and the plurality of blades are disposed to correspond to one rupture portion (paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 7, Casey discloses that the rupture portion is formed to have a hemispherical shape and protrudes toward the cell stack, and the rupture portion protrudes toward the blade and comes into contact with the blade, when the internal pressure of the case increases (paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 8, Casey discloses that at least a portion of an edge of the blade is disposed to oppose a convex central portion of the rupture portion (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 9, Casey discloses that the rupture sheet further includes a protruding frame 132 formed to protrude from the first frame 130, and the rupture portion is formed to extend from an end of the protruding frame (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 10, Casey discloses that the blade 140 is disposed to protrude from the second frame toward the rupture portion (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 11, Casey discloses that the blade is disposed on the same plane as that of the second frame, and is formed to have a sawtooth shape (paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 12, Casey discloses an apparatus comprising: a cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (paragraph 2) within an enclosure configured to accommodate the cell stack therein, wherein a rupture portion 100, configured to be deformed by internal pressure of the enclosure (paragraph 56), at least a portion of the rupture portion has a shape of a curved surface recessed toward the internal space of the case (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 13, Casey discloses a rupture sheet 110 disposed on at least one side of the cell stack, wherein the rupture portion is distributed throughout the rupture sheet (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 14, Casey discloses a blade 140 disposed on the at least one surface of the case, the blade configured to rupture the rupture portion (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 15, Casey discloses that the rupture portion is disposed between the blade and the cell stack (paragraph 56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights