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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2022-007823, filed on January 21, 2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0041] of the specification contains a redundant comma on page 18 line 10.
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 2-7 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.
Regarding Claim 2, as currently presented it is unclear what the short-circuit preventing structure is configured to cause. For purposes of examination, it is assumed the short-circuit preventing structure is configured to cause the electrolytic solution coming out of the power storage modules to fall downward.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “a valve body blocking each of the communication paths while allowing the communication path to be open” seems to contradict itself, as it implies the communication paths are both blocked by the valve body as well as open. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that a valve body blocks the communication path until a predetermined internal pressure is reached, at which point the communication paths are allowed to be open.
Claims 4-6 are rejected as they depend on claims 2 and 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pressure regulation valve" in the second and third lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenji (JP 2021009794 with reference made to the attached translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Akito teaches a pressure regulating valve, in a power storage device which includes a plurality of power storage modules and in which the power storage modules are stacked, in each of the power storage modules, a plurality of bipolar electrodes are stacked between an electrode with a positive polarity and an electrode with a negative polarity, each of the bipolar electrodes includes a current collector, a positive electrode provided on one surface of the current collector, and a negative electrode provided on an opposite surface of the current collector, an internal space defined by a seal member is formed between each pair of the electrodes opposed to one another, an electrolytic solution is sealed in each of the internal spaces, and a separator intervenes between each pair of the electrodes opposed to one another, the pressure regulating valve allowing the internal spaces of each of the power storage modules to be open, the pressure regulating valve comprising a short-circuit preventing structure for preventing short circuit between the power storage modules caused by the electrolytic solution coming outside of the power storage modules (Figure 5, abstract, and [0048] teach inclined portion 31b located below exhaust port 41 to guide discharged electrolyte away from terminals), wherein the short-circuit preventing structure is configured to hold back a part of a flow of the electrolytic solution fallen onto the pressure regulating valve from above (Figure 5, abstract, and [0048] teach inclined portion 31b serves to hold back electrolyte flow).
It is noted that while the preamble recites intended use and does not limit the claim, Kenji teaches the same battery structure as in the preamble of instant Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Kenji further teaches the short circuit preventing structure is configured to cause the electrolytic solution coming outside of the power storage modules fallen down below (Figure 5, abstract, and [0048] teach inclined portion 31b directing the electrolytic solution to fall downward).
Regarding Claim 7, Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Kenji further teaches the part of the flow of the electrolytic solution is a flow of which direction is away from an end of the pressure regulation valve (Figure 5 teaches the inclined portion 31b directs the electrolytic flow away from the end of the pressure regulating valve 12).
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(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji in view of Oide (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0115757).
Regarding Claim 3, Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Kenji further teaches a housing to be attached to the power storage module, the housing including an opening portion and communication paths through which the respective internal spaces are caused to be in communication with the opening portion (Figure 6, abstract, and [0049] teach a valve body 50 with communication hole 33); a valve body blocking each of the communication paths while allowing the communication path to be open (Figure 6 and [0046] teach valve body 30 blocking communication hole 33); and a lid to be attached to the opening portion of the housing, wherein the housing includes an upper wall portion and a lower wall portion that are portions opposed to each other in a stacking direction of the power storage modules to form the opening portion (Figure 6 and [0047] teach cover 31 that closes the opening of the case 29; Figure 6 and [0049] teach upper surface 50b and lower surface 50c).
Kenji does not teach a drain outlet is formed in the lower wall portion, the drain outlet being a portion penetrating the lower wall portion, an upper surface of the upper wall portion is provided with a stepped portion, the upper surface being a surface facing an upper side, the stepped portion projecting on the upper side to form a step, and the stepped portion is located at a position not opposed in the up-and-down direction to the drain outlet.
Oide does teach a drain outlet is formed in the lower wall portion, the drain outlet being a portion penetrating the lower wall portion (Figures 4 and 5 teach drainage nozzle 37 is positioned on bottom wall portion 33), an upper surface of the upper wall portion is provided with a stepped portion, the upper surface being a surface facing an upper side, the stepped portion projecting on the upper side to form a step (Figure 5 teaches upper wall portion 41 creating a step), and the stepped portion is located at a position not opposed in the up-and-down direction to the drain outlet (Figure 5 teaches the drainage nozzle 37 and the upper wall portion 41 are not opposed in the vertical direction).
Kenji and Oide are both analogous to the instant application as they both relate to managing the flow of electrolyte discharged from a pressure regulating valve. To solve the same problem of directing the flow of discharged electrolyte in a safe manner, Oide teaches the use of a drainage nozzle at the lowest portion of an accommodating area. Oide also teaches the inclusion of an upper stepped portion that may serve to further contain the flow of electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the pressure regulating valve of Kenji and incorporate the drainage nozzle and stepped portion of Oide in order to further control the flow path of discharged electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as described above.
Modified Kenji as described above does not explicitly teach the drain outlet is provided in at least one of end portions in an extending direction of the lower wall portion.
Kenji does teach a drain outlet is located at an end portion (Figure 6 and [0050]-[0051] teach the exhaust port 41 is located at the end of the pressure regulating valve).
Oide teaches the drain outlet is located on the lower wall portion (Figure 5 teaches drainage nozzle 47 is positioned on bottom wall portion 33).
To solve the same problem of directing the flow of electrolyte discharged from a pressure regulating valve, Kenji and Oide teach the location and orientation of a drain outlet is an important consideration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the exhaust outlet on the pressure regulating valve of Kenji and position it on a bottom wall portion, as taught by Oide.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as described above.
Modified Kenji as described above does not teach the lower wall portion has and inner surface, the inner surface being a surface facing the upper side, and a flow path is formed in the inner surface, the flow path forming a flow of liquid directed to the drain outlet.
Oide does the lower wall portion has an inner surface, the inner surface being a surface facing the upper side, and a flow path is formed in the inner surface, the flow path forming a flow of liquid directed to the drain outlet (Figure 5 teaches a flow path on bottom wall portion 33 directed towards drainage nozzle 37).
To solve the same problem of guiding the flow of electrolyte discharged out of a pressure regulating nozzle, Oide teaches the formation of a flow path to direct discharged electrolyte to a drainage nozzle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the pressure regulating valve of Kenji and incorporate a flow path guiding electrolyte flow to a discharge nozzle, as taught by Oide.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kenji teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as described above.
Modified Kenji as described above does not teach the lid projects on the upper side with respect to the upper wall portion.
Oide does teach the lid projects on the upper side with respect to the upper wall portion (Figure 4 and [0045]-[0047] teach side wall 32 projecting upward to contain discharged electrolyte).
To solve the same problem of containing electrolyte discharge from a pressure regulating valve, Odie teaches sidewall 32 extends upward to ensure discharged electrolyte in contained in an accommodating are. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing take the pressure regulating valve of modified Kenji and incorporate a lid that projects on the upper side to further contain discharged electrolyte, as taught by Oide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin (EP 2634835) teaches a battery system configured to safely recover electrolyte leaked from a battery module.
Yoda (US 2010/0003589) teaches a structure to prevent a flow of electrolyte from making electrical contact with battery terminals.
Akito (JP 2020077553) teaches a pressure regulating valve with a drain pipe to guide discharged electrolyte away from battery modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights