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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/5/2024, 7/14/2025, 10/14/2025, 2/17/2026 AND 8/20/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 4/5/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
5. Claim 1 defines the features "protrusion corresponding region and nonprotrusion corresponding regions" with reference to another entity, e.g. the battery in which the battery cell is meant to be placed. However, these features do not appear to imply any structural limitations for the battery as such so that any document disclosing a battery cell with an explosion-proof valve placed at the bottom will be considered that the document teaches the claim limitation.
6. Similar considerations apply to dependent claims 2 to 6 as it does not appear possible to distinguish non-protrusions corresponding regions not comprising explosion-proof valves from protrusion corresponding regions in the battery housing as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeng et al (US 20220013856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng discloses a battery housing (21) for battery cell (20) comprising a shell (211) (Fig. 4, 5), wherein a bottom of the shell has a protrusion corresponding region (Fig. 5: region where the explosion proof valve 213 is not present) and non-protrusion corresponding regions (Fig. 5: region where the explosion proof valve is present), the protrusion corresponding region is opposite a protrusion of a bottom plate of a battery (the battery as such is not part of the subject-matter of clam 1,) and the non-protrusion corresponding regions and the protrusion of the bottom plate of the battery are staggered with each other (Fig. 5); and an explosion-proof valve (213), wherein the explosion-proof valve is disposed in the non-protrusion corresponding region (Fig. 5; claim 1 ).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches that the explosion-proof valve is an indentation explosion-proof valve (Fig. 3-5; paragraph 0070, 0080).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng teaches that the battery cell (20) comprises the battery housing according to claim 1; and a cell (22), wherein the cell is disposed in the shell (2111) of the battery housing (Fig. 4; paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches a battery (10), wherein the battery comprises multiple such battery cells according to claim 8, wherein the multiple battery cells (20) are arranged in sequence; and a bottom plate fixedly disposed at bottoms of the multiple battery cells, with a protrusion on the bottom plate being opposite the protrusion corresponding region of the battery housing of the battery cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20220013856 A1) as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, Providing the position of the protrusion corresponding region and the non-protrusion corresponding regions on the bottom of the shell is considered to relate to obvious design modifications of the battery housing of Zeng for the skilled person when selecting the location of the explosion-proof valve.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches a battery (10), wherein the battery comprises multiple such battery cells according to claim 8, wherein the multiple battery cells (20) are arranged in sequence; and a bottom plate (131) fixedly disposed at bottoms of the multiple battery cells (Fig. 9; paragraph 0084). Although Zeng remains silent about protrusion, however, providing a protrusion on the bottom plate being opposite the protrusion corresponding region of the battery housing of the battery cell would be within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan and would have been obvious to direct fluid on both sides of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 10, Zeng teaches an electric device, wherein the electric device comprises the battery according to claim 9 (Fig. 1; paragraph 0077).
14. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20220013856 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Park et al (US 20190379011 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6, it is considered to be well known in the art to provide a battery housing with multiple explosion-proof valves disposed symmetrically as also taught by Park (Fig. 1; claim 1). Therefore, the features of dependent claims 4 to 6 are considered to relate to modifications within the reach of the skilled person. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights