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 .
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111740055 A (to Chen et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below, in view of Kurosawa (US 20110020676 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches a battery assembly comprising:
a case/(cabin) (Figure 2, 1) defining an inner volume (as illustrated); said inner volume being hermetic/sealed/airtight (page 3, 7th paragraph);
a plurality of batteries (18) arranged in said inner volume (as illustrated); and
wherein said inner volume contains, in use, a gaseous medium comprising dry/(dehumidified) air and inert gas (nitrogen) (page 3, 5th & 6th paragraphs, page 4, lines 11-26).
Chen fails to teach wherein the battery assembly is for a motor vehicle. Kurosawa teaches a case (24) (Figure 5) defining an inner volume (as illustrated); said inner volume being hermetic/(hermetically sealed) (para. [0089]);
a plurality of batteries (21) arranged in said inner volume (as illustrated); and
wherein said inner volume contains, in use, a gaseous medium comprising dry air or inert gas (para. [0102]) in order to prevent explosions of batteries onboard of vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide the battery assembly of Chen for use in a motor vehicle, as taught by Kurosawa, in order to prevent explosions of batteries onboard of vehicles.
With respect to claim 2, Chen teaches wherein said inner volume contains at least 88% of dry air – Chen teaches that at the onset, oxygen enriched air is present in the sealing cabinet, and is then discharged (page 3, 5th para.).
With respect to claim 3, Chen teaches wherein said inner volume contains at least 78% nitrogen (page 3, 5th para.), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of at least 88% of inert gas – it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try percentages of inert gas that are greater than 78% and including at least 88% in order to achieve optimal results as related to battery explosion prevention.
With respect to claim 4, Chen teaches wherein said inner volume contains a nitrogen to oxygen ratio of 78% : 21% (i.e. 99% air and inert gas) (page 3, 5th para.), which fall within the instantly claimed range of at least 88% of dry air and inert gas – it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try different ratios of nitrogen to oxygen such that the inner volume would contain at least 88% of dry air and inert gas.
With respect to claim 5, wherein relative humidity contained in said inner volume is, in use, less than 12% - the “relative humidity” constitutes an “operational/use” condition, which does not Iimit the invented apparatus. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQZd 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), see also In re Swinehad, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). ''Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.'' Hewlett-packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 6, Chen teaches wherein said inner volume is permanently sealed – Chen teaches wherein the cabin is sealed/airtight (page 3, 7th paragraph). However, the added limitation of “permanently” sealed constitutes an “operational/use” condition, which does not Iimit the invented apparatus. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQZd 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), see also In re Swinehad, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). ''Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.'' Hewlett-packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 7, Chen teaches wherein it comprises one or more power electronic devices/(BMS) (page 4, 4th paragraph).
With respect to claim 8, Chen in view of Kurosawa teaches wherein a motor vehicle comprises a battery assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above.
With respect to claim 9, Chen teaches wherein a cooling system/(heat exchanger) adapted to limit the temperature of said batteries (page 3, last line – page 4, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 7/10/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights