BATTERY ASSEMBLY HAVING A CELL DEGASSING CHANNEL, MOTOR VEHICLE, AND METHOD FOR DISCHARGING GASES FROM A BATTERY
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 11-19 and 21-30 in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 14, 17, 18, 26, and 29 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 14 recites the limitation "the multiple gas guiding structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the third direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the multiple gas discharge paths". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 26 and 29 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 14.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Egashira et al. (US 2021/0265700 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Egashira et al. teach a battery assembly (Fig. 5 discloses a power storage device, element 100.) with a battery (Fig. 5 discloses a battery stack, element 2.) and a cell degassing channel for discharging gases from the battery (Fig. 4B; paragraph 0067 discloses a cover part, element 50, covering the upper surface of the battery stack, element 2. The cover part is provided with a partitioning gas guide path, element 60, inside the cover part to discharge gas from the gas discharge valve, element 15, to outside the cover part, element 50.), which comprises at least one battery cell (Fig. 5 discloses a stack of battery cells, element 1.), wherein the cell degassing channel has a chamber (Fig. 4B; paragraph 0073 discloses a main path, element 61.) which is designed such that a gas emerging from the at least one battery cell can be introduced into it and can be guided through it along at least one gas discharge path to at least one outlet opening of the chamber (Figs. 4B, 5; paragraph 0073 the main path, element 61, is installed in the center of a holder part, element 56, extended in a rectangular shape as illustrated in FIG. 4A and the like, each gas discharge valve, element 15, can communicate with main path, element 61, when opened. Main path, element 61, also communicates with sub-path, element 62, and communicates with exhaust port, element 63, through sub-path, element 62. Exhaust port, element 63, is an opening for discharging gas from cover part, element 50, to the outside.),
wherein the chamber has at least one gas guiding structure arranged in an interior of the chamber and not running in a straight line in a main course direction that corresponds to a first direction (Figs. 4B, 11 and 12A; paragraph 0115 disclose an obstacle for reducing momentum of a gas flow may be disposed in the gas guide path such as a mesh body, element 68, disposed in the main path, element 61, as an obstacle. The mesh body, element 68, is clearly not designed to run in a straight line.), which is designed such that the at least one gas discharge path has multiple changes of direction in its course in the main course direction with respect to a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 11 and 12A show the mesh body in a zigzag shape.).
Regarding claims 14 and 22, Egashira et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the multiple gas guiding structures are designed in the same way and are arranged parallel to each other (Paragraph 0116).
Regarding claims 15, 24, and 26, Egashira et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas guiding structure is designed to run straight in a third direction, which is perpendicular to the first and second directions (Fig. 11, paragraph 0115).
Regarding claims 16, 27, 29, and 30, Egashira et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas guiding structure is formed from a metallic material (Paragraph 0115 discloses the mesh body is made of a metal sheet.).
Regarding claim 17, Egashira et al. teach battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the interior of the chamber has a width in the third direction and a length in the first direction, and the at least one gas guiding structure extends in the third direction at least over a large part of the width of the interior and/or extends in the first direction at least over a large part of the length of the interior (Fig. 11; paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 19, Egashira et al. teach a motor vehicle having a battery assembly according to claim 11 (Paragraph 0002).
Claims 11-15, 17-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gondoh et al. (US 2021/0066690 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gondoh et al. teach a battery assembly with a battery (Paragraph 0002 discloses a battery stack with a plurality of batteries connected in series.) and a cell degassing channel for discharging gases from the battery (Fig. 3; paragraph 0028 discloses a battery pack exhaust duct, element 6 provided within the housing of the battery pack.), which comprises at least one battery cell (Fig. 2 discloses a battery cell, element 12.), wherein the cell degassing channel has a chamber (Fig. 4 shows the battery pack exhaust duct, element 6, has a guide tube, element 30.) which is designed such that a gas emerging from the at least one battery cell can be introduced into it and can be guided through it along at least one gas discharge path to at least one outlet opening of the chamber (Figs. 2-4; paragraph 0037 discloses the guide tube, element 30, is fixed to a container of the battery, element 2a. Exhaust is discharged from the valves of the battery, element 24 and enters the guide tube, element 30 through exhaust inlets, element 32, and is discharged from the housing through the exhaust outlet, element 34.),
wherein the chamber has at least one gas guiding structure arranged in an interior of the chamber and not running in a straight line in a main course direction that corresponds to a first direction (Figs. 4, 5a-c; paragraphs 0039-0049 disclose the guide tube, element 30, has several non-rectilinear gas guide structures, or exhaust guide components, elements 36/136/236, which control the flow, element F1, in one direction.), which is designed such that the at least one gas discharge path has multiple changes of direction in its course in the main course direction with respect to a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See Fig. 4, directions indicated by x, y, and z plot. Further, paragraph 0039 discloses the exhaust guide components have a zigzag shape.).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claims 11 and 12, wherein the chamber in the interior has a plurality of gas guiding structures comprising the at least one gas guiding structure (Fig. 4 discloses multiple exhaust guide components, element 36, in the guide tube, element 30.), wherein the multiple gas guiding structures do not run in a straight line in the main course direction (Fig. 4 shows the exhaust guide components are not arranged in a straight line.), so that a gas discharge path is provided between two gas guiding structures of the plurality of gas guiding structures arranged adjacently in the second direction, which has multiple changes of direction in its course in the main course direction with respect to a second direction perpendicular to the first (Fig. 4 shows the arrangement of the exhaust guide components which cause the exhaust flow, F1.).
Regarding claims 14, 22, and 23, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the multiple gas guiding structures are designed in the same way and are arranged parallel to each other (See Fig. 4 and the arrangement of the exhaust guide components, element 36.).
Regarding claims 15 and 24-26, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas guiding structure is designed to run straight in a third direction, which is perpendicular to the first and second directions (See Fig. 4 and the arrangement of the exhaust guide components, element 36.).
Regarding claim 17, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the interior of the chamber has a width in the third direction and a length in the first direction, and the at least one gas guiding structure extends in the third direction at least over a large part of the width of the interior and/or extends in the first direction at least over a large part of the length of the interior (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11, wherein the multiple gas discharge paths provided between the gas guiding structures are fluidly coupled to one another (Fig. 3 shows two exhaust flows, F1 and F2.) in a gas inlet region of the chamber and/or in the region of the outlet opening (Fig. 3 shows F1 and F2 coupled at the exhaust outlet, element 34.).
Regarding claim 19, Gondoh et al. teach a motor vehicle having a battery assembly according to claim 11 (Paragraph 0002).
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gondoh et al. (US 2021/0066690 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Egashira et al. (US 2021/0265700 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gondoh et al. teach the battery assembly according to claim 11. However, they do not teach wherein at least one gas guiding structure is formed from a metallic material.
Egashira et al. a gas guide path for battery (Fig. 4B, element 60). Further, the gas guide path can comprise a mesh body (Fig. 11; paragraph 0115, element 68) which can be made of a metallic material (Paragraph 0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the exhaust guide components of Gondoh with that of Egashira in order to reduce the temperature of the gas by removing heat thereof can be obtained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 October 5th, 2026
Prosecution Insights