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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–10 are pending.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0258641 A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 April 2024 and 12 May 2025 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 30 (e.g., [0067], [0068]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
FIGS. 1–9 do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. All lines are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well defined to permit adequate reproduction. See US 2024/0258641 A1. All drawings must be made by a process, which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See 37 CFR 1.84 (l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following title is suggested: EXHAUST SYSTEM HAVING GUIDE ASSEMBLIES TO EXPEL FUMES UNIDIRECTIONALLY, ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character 30 is referred to as a branch pipe in paragraph [0067]. Reference character 31 is used to designate a branch pipe. Reference character 31 should be used to designate a branch pipe in paragraph [0067].
Reference character 30 is referred to as a branch pipe in paragraph [0068]. Reference character 31 is used to designate a branch pipe. Reference character 31 should be used to designate a branch pipe in paragraph [0068].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each of the partition plates" in line 2. Claim 2 has previously recited the limitation "at least one partition plate" in line 2. The number of "partition plates" required by claim 4 is unclear because the limitation "at least one partition plate" indicates one partition plate is required whereas the limitation "each of the partition plates" indicates two plates are required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each of the partition plates comprises an inner cavity configured to temporarily store fumes." Claim 1, which claim 4 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "the fumes." It is unclear if "fumes" recited in claim 4 is further limiting or referencing "the fumes" recited in claim 1. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the term "fumes." However, the limitation "fumes" recited in claim 4 does not include "the" or "said" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing the previously recited term.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the partition plates" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 provides antecedent basis for the term "at least one partition plate."
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each exhaust port communicates with the inner cavity of at least one partition plate" in line 5. Claim 4 has previously recited the limitation "at least one partition plate" in line 2. It is unclear if "at least one partition plate" in line 5 is further limiting or referencing "at least one partition plate" recited in claim 2. Claim 4 provides antecedent basis for the term "at least one partition plate" in line 2. However, the limitation "at least one partition plate" in line 5 does not include "the" or "said" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing the previously recited term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "one corresponding exhaust assembly." Claim 1, which claim 6 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation "an exhaust assembly." It is unclear if "one corresponding exhaust assembly" recited in claim 6 is further limiting or referencing "an exhaust assembly" recited in claim 1. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the term "an exhaust assembly." However, the limitation "one corresponding exhaust assembly" does not include "of the/said exhaust assembly" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing the previously recited term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "one corresponding exhaust port." Claim 1, which claim 6 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation "an exhaust port." It is unclear if "one corresponding exhaust port" recited in claim 6 is further limiting or referencing "an exhaust port" recited in claim 1. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the term "an exhaust port." However, the limitation "one corresponding exhaust assembly" does not include "of the/said exhaust port" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing the previously recited term.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "one corresponding exhaust port." Claim 1, which claim 7 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "an exhaust port." It is unclear if "one corresponding exhaust port" recited in claim 7 is further limiting or referencing "an exhaust port" recited in claim 1. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the term "an exhaust port." However, the limitation "one corresponding exhaust assembly" does not include "of the/said exhaust port" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing the previously recited term.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "one corresponding battery cabinet." Claim 1, which claim 7 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "at least two battery cabinets." It is unclear if "one corresponding battery cabinet" recited in claim 7 is further limiting or referencing one of "at least two battery cabinets" recited in claim 1. The limitation "one corresponding battery cabinet" does not include "of the/said at least two battery cabinets" indicating this limitation is further limiting or referencing one of the previously recited term.
Claim 8 is directly dependent from claim 7 and includes all the limitation of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 is also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1–7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishino et al. (US 2010/0104928 A1, hereinafter Nishino).
Regarding claim 1, Nishino discloses an exhaust system (10) for an energy storage device, wherein the energy storage device comprises a box (1A, 1B) and at least two battery cabinets (1D) disposed in the box (1A, 1B; [0041]), and an exhaust port (2H) is created on each battery cabinet (1D, [0051]), and the exhaust system (10) comprises:
an exhaust assembly (1C), communicating with each of the exhaust ports (24) sequentially (FIG. 1, [0041]), and configured to collect fumes expelled from the exhaust ports (2H, [0042]); and
at least two guide assemblies (1H, [0040]),
wherein each guide assembly (1H) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2H) and the exhaust assembly (1C) in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0042]), and
the guide assembly (1H) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (1D) out of the box (1A, 1B) unidirectionally from the exhaust assembly (1C) through the exhaust port (2H, [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein the exhaust assembly (1C) comprises at least two branch pipes (1I, [0040]),
one end of each branch pipe (1I) communicates with one of the exhaust ports (2H, [0042]), and
another end of the branch pipe (1I) extends out of the box (1A, 1B; [0048]); and
each guide assembly (1H) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2H) and the branch pipe (1I) in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0053]), and
each guide assembly (1H) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (1D) out of the box (1A, 1B) unidirectionally from the branch pipe (1I, [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein the exhaust assembly (1C) comprises a main pipe (1P, [0040]), and
all the branch pipes (1I) communicate with the main pipe (1P) and extend out of the box (1A, 1B) through the main pipe (1P, [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein the exhaust assembly (1C) comprises at least one partition plate (12L, [0065]),
each of the partition plates (12L) comprises an inner cavity configured to temporarily store fumes (FIG. 8, [0066]), and
each inner cavity communicates with an exterior of the box (1A, 1B, [0066]); and
each exhaust port (2H) communicates with the inner cavity of at least one partition plate (12L, [0066]), and
each guide assembly (12H) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2H) and the inner cavity in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0066]), and
each guide assembly (2H) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (1D) out of the box (1A, 1B) unidirectionally from the partition plate (12L, [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein each guide assembly (1H) comprises an exhaust valve (see explosion-proof valve, [0051]), and
the exhaust valve is configured to control opening/closing of a passage between each exhaust port (2H) and the exhaust assembly (1C) in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein each guide assembly (1H) further comprises a connecting piece (5A, [0053]),
the exhaust valve is disposed in the connecting piece (5A, [0051]),
one end of the connecting piece (5A) along an extension direction of the connecting piece (5A) communicates with a corresponding exhaust port (2H, [0053]), and
another end of the connecting piece (5A)communicates with a corresponding exhaust assembly (1C, [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an exhaust system:
wherein each guide assembly (1H) comprises a protection piece (see explosion-proof valve, [0051]) hermetically disposed at a corresponding exhaust port, and
the protection piece is able to be detached from the exhaust port under an impact force of the fumes in a corresponding battery cabinet (1D, [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Nishino discloses an energy storage device (12), comprising a box (1A, 1B), an battery cabinet (1D) disposed in the box (1A, 1B), a control module (1M), and an exhaust system, wherein the exhaust system (10) implements communication between the battery cabinet (1D) and an exterior of the box (1A, 1B), and the control module (1M) is communicatively connected to the exhaust system (10, [0040]), wherein the exhaust system comprises:
an exhaust assembly (1C), communicating with each of the exhaust ports (24) sequentially (FIG. 1, [0041]), and configured to collect fumes expelled from the exhaust ports (2H, [0042]); and
at least two guide assemblies (1H, [0040]),
wherein each guide assembly (1H) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2H) and the exhaust assembly (1C) in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0042]), and
the guide assembly (1H) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (1D) out of the box (1A, 1B) unidirectionally from the exhaust assembly (1C) through the exhaust port (2H, [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Nishino discloses an electrical device, comprising an electrical main body (14) and an energy storage device (12), comprising a box (1A, 1B), an battery cabinet (1D) disposed in the box (1A, 1B), a control module (1M), and an exhaust system, wherein the exhaust system (10) implements communication between the battery cabinet (1D) and an exterior of the box (1A, 1B), and the control module (1M) is communicatively connected to the exhaust system (10, [0040]), wherein the exhaust system comprises:
an exhaust assembly (1C), communicating with each of the exhaust ports (24) sequentially (FIG. 1, [0041]), and configured to collect fumes expelled from the exhaust ports (2H, [0042]); and
at least two guide assemblies (1H, [0040]),
wherein each guide assembly (1H) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2H) and the exhaust assembly (1C) in communication with the exhaust port (2H, [0042]), and
the guide assembly (1H) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (1D) out of the box (1A, 1B) unidirectionally from the exhaust assembly (1C) through the exhaust port (2H, [0048]).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohgitani et al. (US 2014/0205878 A1, hereinafter Ohgitani).
Regarding claim 1, Ohgitani discloses an exhaust system (9) for an energy storage device, wherein the energy storage device comprises a box (1) and at least two battery cabinets (2) disposed in the box (1, [0021]), and an exhaust port (2a) is created on each battery cabinet (2, [0021]), and the exhaust system (9) comprises:
an exhaust assembly (11), communicating with each of the exhaust ports (2a) sequentially (FIG. 2, [0026), and configured to collect fumes expelled from the exhaust ports (2a, [0021]); and
at least two guide assemblies (10, [0040]),
wherein each guide assembly (10) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (2a) and the exhaust assembly (11) in communication with the exhaust port (2a, [0026]), and
the guide assembly (10) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (2) out of the box (1) unidirectionally from the exhaust assembly (11) through the exhaust port (2a, [0026]).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (CN 110190212 A; see English language equivalent, US 2022/0123427 A1; hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses an exhaust system (100) for an energy storage device, wherein the energy storage device comprises a box (400) and at least two battery cabinets (200) disposed in the box (400, [0047]), and an exhaust port (201) is created on each battery cabinet (200, [0047]), and the exhaust system (100) comprises:
an exhaust assembly (30), communicating with each of the exhaust ports (201) sequentially (FIG. 4, [0047]), and configured to collect fumes expelled from the exhaust ports (201, [0047]); and
at least two guide assemblies (300, [0049]),
wherein each guide assembly (300) is disposed between one of the exhaust ports (201) and the exhaust assembly (30) in communication with the exhaust port (201, [0049]), and
the guide assembly (300) is configured to expel the fumes in the battery cabinet (200) out of the box (400) unidirectionally from the exhaust assembly (30) through the exhaust port (201, [0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (US 2010/0104928 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 110707262 A, hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 8, Nishino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an exhaust system:
wherein the protection piece is made of an aluminum laminated film.
Tang discloses an exhaust system (FIG. 1, [0019]) comprising a protection piece (2) made of an aluminum laminated film (see aluminum-plastic film, [0019]) to improve the safety of the energy storage device (see valve, [0025]). Nishino and Tang are analogous because they are directed to exhaust systems for energy storage devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the protection piece of Nishino with the aluminum laminated film of Tang in order to improve the safety of the energy storage device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights