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 § 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 10-11 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 10 recites the limitation "the venting holes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting --one of the at least one venting hole--.
Claim 11 is rejected based upon its dependence on claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 is in improper form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 requires that the sealing member is installed in the hollow venting channel of the housing of the venting device, while claim 1 requires that the sealing member is installed on at least one of the side wall of the lower case and the upper case to cover at least one venting hole. As such, it is impossible for the sealing member to be “on at least one of the side wall of the lower case and the upper case” and also “in the hollow venting channel of the housing” of the venting device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 112751121 with reliance upon the machine translation; hereinafter “Liu”).
In regard to claim 1, Liu discloses a battery pack (battery box 100) comprising a lower case (shell 1) configured to accommodate a plurality of battery modules (battery modules 101) therein; an upper case (necessarily present but not pictured) coupled to the lower case while covering the lower case; at least one venting hole (mounting holes 14) provided in a side wall of the lower case; a sealing member (explosion proof valve 3) installed on the side wall of the lower case to cover the at least one venting hole, and configured to be deformed under a predetermined pressure or a predetermined temperature or higher (“the high temperature gas acts on the explosion-proof valve; the explosion-proof valve is opened by high pressure;” see page 5 of the translation) to open at least one venting hole; and a flame control block (filtering unit 2) mounted on an inner surface of the side wall of the lower case to cover the at least one venting hole and the sealing member, the flame control block including a flame blocking surface with a plurality of flame discharge holes (mesh plate 212) and an inner space that communicates with the flame discharge holes and that is open toward the venting holes and the sealing member. See Figures 1-3 and 5 and pages 4-7 of the translation.
In regard to claim 2, Liu discloses a mesh-shaped flame extinction member (inner mesh plate 22) installed inside of the sealing member. See Figure 5 and page 6 of the translation.
In regard to claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the flame control block comprises a protruding frame (side plate 211) protruding toward an inside of the battery pack while surrounding the at least one venting hole and the sealing member, and wherein a protruding surface (mesh plate 212) of the protruding frame forms the flame blocking surface, and the inner space is between an inner surface of the protruding frame, at least one venting hole, and the sealing member. See Figures 2-3 and 5 and page 7 of the translation.
In regard to claim 4, Liu discloses a mounting bracket (connecting plate 213) on an end of the protruding frame opposite to the flame blocking surface, wherein the mounting bracket is mounted on the inner surface of the side wall of the lower case. See Figures 2-3 and 5 and page 7 of the translation.
In regard to claim 12, Liu discloses wherein the flame control block further comprises at least one partition frame (inner mesh plate 22) including flame discharge holes (holes in the mesh) communicating with the flame discharge holes in the flame blocking surface, configured to partition the inner space (“inner layer mesh plate 22 is fixed on the inner mounting cavity”), and installed in the protruding frame. See Figure 5 and page 7 of the translation.
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.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 3 and 12 above and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0133901; hereinafter “Li”).
In regard to claim 5, Liu is silent in regard to wherein a gas inlet is provided at a corner of the protruding frame.
Li discloses a battery pack with a safety protection device 40 (equivalent to the recited flame control block) for covering a venting hole (relief hole 510) which has a sealing member (relief disk) installed therein. The safety protection device 40 is disclosed to have several different embodiments, with at least the embodiment of Figure 8 including a plurality of flame discharge holes in baffle plate 48 and a gas inlet (open side walls) at a corner of a protruding frame (the legs from the mounting flanges to the baffle plate to allow more gas to pass through while blocking particles. See Figure 8 and [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the safety protection device of Li for the filtering unit of Liu for the purpose of proving a flame blocking member that allows more gas to pass through while still blocking particles from escaping the battery pack. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
In regard to claim 13, Liu is silent in regard to wherein the flame discharge holes in the at least one partition frame is provided to overlap at least some of the flame discharge holes in the flame blocking surface.
Li discloses, in an other embodiment depicted in Figure 9, a safety protection device 40 wherein flame discharge holes in the partition frame (side wall 49) overlap with some of the flame discharge holes in the flame blocking surface (baffle 48). See Figure 9 and [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the safety protection device of Li for the filtering unit of Liu for the purpose of proving a flame blocking member that allows more gas to pass through while still blocking particles from escaping the battery pack to effectively balance a sparks baffle effect and a gas discharge velocity. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0367970; hereinafter “Jeon”).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, Liu is silent in regard to further comprising a venting device mounted on at least one of an outer side of the side wall of the lower case and the upper case while covering the venting holes, wherein the venting device comprises: a housing provided with a hollow venting channel communicating with at least one venting hole; and a mesh-shaped flame extinction member coupled to an entrance of the hollow venting channel communicating with the at least one venting hole, wherein the sealing member is installed in the hollow venting channel of the housing.
Jeon discloses a venting device (non-flammable member 1200) mounted on an outer side of the side wall of the lower case while covering a venting hole 1101, wherein the venting device comprises: a housing (body part 1230) provided with a hollow venting channel (internal space 1240) communicating with the venting hole 1101; and a mesh-shaped flame extinction member (blocking portion 1210 in the form of “mesh nets;” see [0087]) coupled to an entrance of the hollow venting channel communicating with the at least one venting hole, and wherein the sealing member (blocking film 1220) is installed in the hollow venting channel of the housing. See Figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0037]-[0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-flammable member of Jeon with the battery pack of Li for the purpose of providing an additional external structure to suppress or minimize a spurt of flames or high-temperature gas to the outside of the battery pack to suppress the spread of fire to other neighboring battery packs or the surrounding area. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 14-15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights