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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit as it is 180 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US 20130095356 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/11/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a battery pack and battery module including a plurality of batteries that have exhaust valves that open in response to an increase internal pressure (fig. 2, 0002, 0026). Further, there is a battery holder with a plurality of housing parts where the ends of the batteries are inserted and the pack case has an exhaust passage to discharge the gas out of the pack (Figs. 5a and 6, exhaust path 60, battery holder 30a, 0033). The battery holder has a lid part facing the battery exhaust valve and the lid part has an opening cover part that makes a larger opening when removed (Figs. 5a and 5b, lid 70, 0035). This larger opening has a greater outside diameter than an outside diameter of the exhaust valve and the opening cover part has a ring shaped peripheral with a weak part that has less strength than another part (fig. 4, 0049).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20130095356 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/11/2024) in view of Enomoto et al. (US 20180205048 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Shimizu teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the weak parts on the lid are formed by being thinner than the surrounding material which can be a resin or rubber (Shimizu, fig. 4b, 0049). Shimizu is silent to the resin or rubber being specifically a thermoset resin. Enomoto teaches a battery module with a plurality of battery cells held by a battery holder. Enomoto teaches that the battery holder can be made of a thermosetting resin in order to prevent melting even at high temperatures (Enomoto 0039). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery pack of Shimizu as described in claim 1 and have the lid and holder be a thermosetting resin as described in Enomoto in order to prevent melting of the parts at high temperatures.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20130095356 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/11/2024) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220123423 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 02/21/2025).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a plurality of the battery modules where the exhaust valves face each other. Wang teaches a battery pack with a plurality of battery modules where the battery cells have explosion proof valves (Wang, abstract). Wang further teaches that the battery modules have the explosion proof valves of the cells facing each other and are separated by an exhaust passage for gas discharge from the battery cells to be discharged out of the pack case in order to not impact adjacent cells (Wang figs. 9 and 10, 0105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery pack of Shimizu as described in claim 1 and have a second battery module opposite and facing the first battery module in order to discharge heat and gas out of the battery pack as taught in Wang as doing so reduces the impact of an explosion on surrounding cells. Both modules sharing the same exhaust passage also reduces space needed for the same battery capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record is Shimizu et al. (US 20130095356 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/11/2024), which discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Motokawa et al. (WO 2018100983 A1, PDF translation provided in the file wrapper). Shimizu does not disclose where the lid part has a smaller holder opening with a smaller diameter than a diameter of the battery exhaust valve or a lead connecting to the terminal through the smaller opening. Motokawa teaches a lead connecting to a terminal through an opening made by a lid, but does not teach the lid having a weak part or forming a larger opening if it is separated. As Shimizu teaches a one-way valve, however, it is not possible to make a modification that would put a hole into the one-way valve for a lead to enter as doing so would destroy its purpose. As the limitations of claim 4 as described above are not taught directly and are not combinable in view of the discussed prior art, it is indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uruno et al. (US 20210013483 A1) teaches a double layered breaking structure in response to increased pressure (Fig. 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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 R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights