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 arguments, see Pages 2-3, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to the restriction requirement between Groups I-III have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, the inventions of Groups I, II, and III are not patentably distinct. The Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 06/10/2026 has been withdrawn and claims 1-20 are examined.
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 12/18/2024 is in compliance 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the first point,” “first angle of inclination,” “the second point,” “second angle of inclination,” and “the central axis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 specification filed on 12/18/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an inner periphery configured the shield the through hole” in line 5 should be replaced with --an inner periphery configured to shield the through hole--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the limitation “a first point on the flow path has a first angle of inclination” and “a second point on the flow path has a second angle of inclination”. It is unclear how a point has an angle. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that the “point” refers to a location on the flow path.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the limitation “a first point on the flow path” and “a second point on the flow path”. It is unclear how “the first point” and “the second point” are selected, apart from the inlet is closer to the first point on the flow path than the second point on the flow path. In addition, the angle of inclination may be different depending on where “the first point” and “the second point” is selected. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that the “the first point” is located on the inner wall of the inlet and “the second point” is located on the inner wall of the outlet, and an inclined flow path would read on the claim limitation.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the limitation “a first point on the flow path has a first angle of inclination with respect to the central axis” and “a second point on the flow path has a second angle of inclination with respect to the central axis”. It is unclear if the central axis is located on the x-axis or y-axis in relation to the flow path. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that the central axis is located on the x-axis in relation to the flow path.
The Examiner recommends to clearly point to where “the first point,” “first angle of inclination,” “the second point,” “second angle of inclination,” and “the central axis” are located in the drawings.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recites the limitation “the through hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected independent Claims 1, 9, and 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 1-3, 9, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US 20210074971 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]), comprising: at least one battery cell (Kim, a plurality of battery cells, [0008]);
a pack case having an internal space configured to accommodate the at least one battery cell (Kim, a cover member accommodating a plurality of battery cells in an internal receiving space, [0008]); and
a vent installed in the pack case and configured to discharge gas generated in the internal space, the vent having a flow path having a central axis, an inlet and an outlet (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells; a top cover coupled to a top of the top plate and having an exhaust area corresponding to the duct, the exhaust area having a plurality of discharge openings, [0008]), wherein
a cross-sectional area of the flow path continuously decreases from the inlet to the outlet (Kim, the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter, [0075]), wherein
a first point on the flow path has a first angle of inclination with respect to the central axis and a second point on the flow path has a second angle of inclination with respect to the central axis, the first angle of inclination being smaller than the second angle of inclination, wherein the inlet is closer to the first point on the flow path than the second point on the flow path (Kim, the duct 141 may be upwardly inclined at an angle (e.g., a predetermined angle) (a) with respect to the interior surface of the duct 141. The angle (a) may be in a range from about 1° to about 5° and, in some embodiments, in a range from about 1° to about 3°, to allow the gas to be sufficiently discharged without obstructing the operation of the vent 124a of the battery cell 120, [0075], Figure 8A), wherein
the vent includes a hole in a wall of the pack case (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells; a top cover coupled to a top of the top plate and having an exhaust area corresponding to the duct, the exhaust area having a plurality of discharge openings, [0008]), wherein
the vent includes a venting guide member attached to an external wall of the pack case (Kim, the protrusion part 162 may protrude from the bottom surface 160b of the top cover 160 and may be coupled to (or may extend around) the exterior of the duct 141, and the protrusion part 162 protruding from the bottom surface 160b of the top cover 160 guides the gas that collides with the exhaust area 161a to the exterior of the duct 141, [0081], Figure 8A), and wherein
the vent protrudes from the external wall of the pack case (Kim, the duct 141 protrudes from the top plate 140, [0075], Figure 8A).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]), wherein the at least one battery cell is a pouch type secondary battery having an electrode assembly and an electrolyte in a pouch-type casing (Kim, the electrode assembly 125 may be accommodated in the case 121 together with an electrolyte, [0111]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]), wherein the inlet of the vent is disposed on an inner surface of a wall of the pack case (Kim, the top plate 140 includes a duct 141 corresponding to a vent 124a located on a top surface of each battery cell, [0066]; the Examiner notes that the battery cell is located inside of the case, so the vent is located on the inner surface of the case).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a vent for discharging gas generated in a pack case of a battery (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells; a top cover coupled to a top of the top plate and having an exhaust area corresponding to the duct, the exhaust area having a plurality of discharge openings, [0008]), comprising:
a body having an outer surface and an inner surface, the inner surface defining a flow path the flow path having a central axis, an inlet and an outlet (Kim, the gas discharged through the vent 124a of the battery cell 120 may move upwardly along (or through) the duct 141 of the top plate 140a, [0066]), wherein
a cross-sectional area of the flow path continuously decreases from the inlet to the outlet (Kim, the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter, [0075]), wherein
a first point on the flow path has a first angle of inclination with respect to the central axis and a second point on the flow path has a second angle of inclination with respect to the central axis, the first angle of inclination being smaller than the second angle of inclination wherein the inlet is closer to the first point on the flow path than the second point on the flow path (Kim, the duct 141 may be upwardly inclined at an angle (e.g., a predetermined angle) (a) with respect to the interior surface of the duct 141. The angle (a) may be in a range from about 1° to about 5° and, in some embodiments, in a range from about 1° to about 3°, to allow the gas to be sufficiently discharged without obstructing the operation of the vent 124a of the battery cell 120, [0075], Figure 8A).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a method of ventilating a battery pack (Kim, to effectively exhaust the gas discharged from the vent, [0076]), comprising:
forming a hole (Kim, having an exhaust area corresponding to the duct, the exhaust area having a plurality of discharge openings, [0008]) in a pack case having an internal space configured to accommodate at least one battery cell (Kim, a cover member accommodating a plurality of battery cells in an internal receiving space, [0008]); and
inserting a vent in the hole; and discharging gas generated in the internal space of the pack case through the vent, wherein the vent has a flow path having a central axis, an inlet and an outlet (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells; a top cover coupled to a top of the top plate and having an exhaust area corresponding to the duct, the exhaust area having a plurality of discharge openings, [0008]), wherein
a cross-sectional area of the flow path continuously decreases from the inlet to the outlet (Kim, the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter, [0075]), wherein
a first point on the flow path has a first angle of inclination with respect to the central axis and a second point on the flow path has a second angle of inclination with respect to the central axis, the first angle of inclination being smaller than the second angle of inclination, wherein the inlet is closer to the first point on the flow path than the second point on the flow path (Kim, the duct 141 may be upwardly inclined at an angle (e.g., a predetermined angle) (a) with respect to the interior surface of the duct 141. The angle (a) may be in a range from about 1° to about 5° and, in some embodiments, in a range from about 1° to about 3°, to allow the gas to be sufficiently discharged without obstructing the operation of the vent 124a of the battery cell 120, [0075], Figure 8A), wherein
the vent includes a venting guide member attached to an external wall of the pack case (Kim, The protrusion part 162 may protrude from the bottom surface 160b of the top cover 160 and may be coupled to (or may extend around) the exterior of the duct 141, and the protrusion part 162 protruding from the bottom surface 160b of the top cover 160 guides the gas that collides with the exhaust area 161a to the exterior of the duct 141, [0081], Figure 8A), and wherein
the vent protrudes from the external wall of the pack case (Kim, the duct 141 protrudes from the top plate 140, [0075], Figure 8A).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kim, to effectively exhaust the gas discharged from the vent, [0076]), wherein the at least one battery cell is a pouch type secondary battery having an electrode assembly and an electrolyte in a pouch-type casing (Kim, the electrode assembly 125 may be accommodated in the case 121 together with an electrolyte, [0111]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kim, to effectively exhaust the gas discharged from the vent, [0076]), wherein the inlet side of the vent is disposed on an inner surface of a wall of the pack case (Kim, the top plate 140 includes a duct 141 corresponding to a vent 124a located on a top surface of each battery cell, [0066]; the Examiner notes that the battery cell is located inside of the case, so the vent is located on the inner surface of the case).
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(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210074971 A1, hereinafter Kim), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Khamitkar (US 20140053916 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]). Kim is silent regarding the vent comprises: an inner bracket; an outer bracket; and a disk having an outer periphery configured to be coupled to the inner bracket and the outer bracket and an inner periphery configured to shield the through hole and to be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto.
Khamitkar discloses a battery pack (Khamitkar, battery box, [0020]), wherein the vent (Khamitkar, the battery box having an outlet opening and a rupture disk, [0020]) comprises:
an inner bracket (Khamitkar, a first layer provides a gasket which abuts the battery box, the gasket having a central opening which aligns with the battery box opening, [0021]);
an outer bracket (Khamitkar, a third layer is an outlet ring layer that sandwiches the second layer in between the first and the third layer layers. The outlet ring layer has a central opening surrounded by an inner edge, [0023]); and
a disk having an outer periphery configured to be coupled to the inner bracket and the outer bracket (Khamitkar, second layer is in the form of a reverse buckling disk having a disk flange, and the second layer is sandwiched between the first and third layer, [0022-0023]) and an inner periphery configured the shield the through hole and to be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Khamitkar teaches that the rupture disk relieves pressure between the interior of a battery box and the exterior of the battery box (Khamitkar, [0020]).
Kim and Khamitkar are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards the removal of gas/pressure from the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the rupture disk of Khamitkar in the battery module of Kim, in order to relieve pressure between the interior of a battery module and the exterior of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]), wherein a notch is formed on the inner periphery to be broken when the predetermined pressure is applied (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a battery pack (Kim, energy storage module, [0008]), wherein the inner bracket and the outer bracket are releasably connected together (Khamitkar, a plurality of tabs are provided on the first and third layers, each tab having a tab opening, said tabs generally aligning so that a fastener can be passed through the tab openings of the first layer and the tab openings of the third layer, [0024]).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210074971 A1, hereinafter Kim), as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Khamitkar (US 20140053916 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a vent (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells, [0008]).
Kim is silent regarding an inner bracket and an outer bracket.
Khamitkar discloses a battery pack (Khamitkar, battery box, [0020]), wherein the vent (Khamitkar, the battery box having an outlet opening and a rupture disk, [0020]) comprises:
an inner bracket (Khamitkar, a first layer provides a gasket which abuts the battery box, the gasket having a central opening which aligns with the battery box opening, [0021]);
an outer bracket (Khamitkar, a third layer is an outlet ring layer that sandwiches the second layer in between the first and the third layer layers. The outlet ring layer has a central opening surrounded by an inner edge, [0023]); and
Khamitkar teaches that the rupture disk relieves pressure between the interior of a battery box and the exterior of the battery box (Khamitkar, [0020]).
Kim and Khamitkar are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards the removal of gas/pressure from the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the rupture disk of Khamitkar in the battery module of Kim, in order to relieve pressure between the interior of a battery module and the exterior of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a vent (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells, [0008]), further comprising a disk having an outer periphery configured to be coupled to the inner bracket and the outer bracket (Khamitkar, second layer is in the form of a reverse buckling disk having a disk flange, and the second layer is sandwiched between the first and third layer, [0022-0023]) and
an inner periphery configured to shield the through hole and to be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a vent (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells, [0008]), wherein a notch is formed on the inner periphery to be broken when the predetermined pressure is applied (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a vent (Kim, a duct corresponding to the vent of at least one of the battery cells, [0008]), wherein the inner bracket and the outer bracket are releasably connected together (Khamitkar, a plurality of tabs are provided on the first and third layers, each tab having a tab opening, said tabs generally aligning so that a fastener can be passed through the tab openings of the first layer and the tab openings of the third layer, [0024]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210074971 A1, hereinafter Kim), as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Khamitkar (US 20140053916 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kim, to effectively exhaust the gas discharged from the vent, [0076]).
Kim is silent regarding the vent comprises: an inner bracket; an outer bracket; and a disk having an outer periphery configured to be coupled to the inner bracket and the outer bracket and an inner periphery configured to shield the through hole and to be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto.
Khamitkar discloses a battery pack (Khamitkar, battery box, [0020]), wherein the vent (Khamitkar, the battery box having an outlet opening and a rupture disk, [0020]) comprises:
an inner bracket (Khamitkar, a first layer provides a gasket which abuts the battery box, the gasket having a central opening which aligns with the battery box opening, [0021]);
an outer bracket (Khamitkar, a third layer is an outlet ring layer that sandwiches the second layer in between the first and the third layer layers. The outlet ring layer has a central opening surrounded by an inner edge, [0023]); and
a disk having an outer periphery configured to be coupled to the inner bracket and the outer bracket (Khamitkar, second layer is in the form of a reverse buckling disk having a disk flange, and the second layer is sandwiched between the first and third layer, [0022-0023]) and an inner periphery configured the shield the through hole and to be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied thereto (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Khamitkar teaches that the rupture disk relieves pressure between the interior of a battery box and the exterior of the battery box (Khamitkar, [0020]).
Kim and Khamitkar are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards the removal of gas/pressure from the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the rupture disk of Khamitkar in the battery module of Kim, in order to relieve pressure between the interior of a battery module and the exterior of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kim, to effectively exhaust the gas discharged from the vent, [0076]), further comprising forming a notch on the inner periphery to be broken when the predetermined pressure is applied (Khamitkar, domed portion and a weakened portion (e.g., score) on the dome that provides a disk burst pressure, [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to a battery pack/vent comprising:
(Claims 6), an inner wall of the flow path is concave;
(Claims 7), an inner wall of the flow path is convex;
(Claims 10), an inner wall of the flow path is concave;
(Claims 11), an inner wall of the flow path is convex.
Kim et al. (US 20210074971 A1, hereinafter Kim) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 6-7 and 10-11. Kim discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Kim does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations for the following reasons:
(Claims 6) Kim discloses that the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter (Kim, [0075]); thus, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards an inner wall of the flow path is concave.
(Claims 7) Kim discloses that the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter (Kim, [0075]); thus, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards an inner wall of the flow path is convex.
(Claims 10) Kim discloses that the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter (Kim, [0075]); thus, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards an inner wall of the flow path is concave.
(Claims 11) Kim discloses that the duct may have an upwardly decreasing inner diameter (Kim, [0075]); thus, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards an inner wall of the flow path is convex.
The Examiner notes that independent claim 16 must include the allowable subject matter to be allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 12,218,377 B2, hereinafter Kim ‘377). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Kim ‘377 claims a gas venting device for a battery module or a battery pack, the gas venting device comprising: an outer bracket including a second through hole in a central portion connected to the first through hole of the inner bracket and including an inner wall of a discharge guide member forming a flow path through which inflowing gas is discharged to an outside, the inner wall being convex or concave, and wherein the flow path has a truncated cone shape in which the cross-sectional area of the flow path continuously decreases toward the outlet portion (Claim 1), a disk inner periphery configured to be formed as one body with the disk outer periphery and shield the through hole, and be broken when a predetermined pressure is applied (Claim 6), and a notch is formed on the disk inner periphery to be broken when the predetermined pressure is applied (Claim 8).
Instant Claims 1, 9, and 16 are all directed towards a vent/flow path having a central axis, an inlet, and an outlet, wherein the cross-sectional area continuously decreases form the inlet to the outlet, and wherein a first point of the flow path has a first angle of inclination that is smaller than a second angle of inclination at a second point nearer the outlet, which is read upon by Kim ‘377’s inner wall being convex or concave, and the flow path has a truncated cone shape in which the cross-sectional area of the flow path continuously decreases toward the outlet portion (Kim ‘377, Claim 1), which results in a larger flow rate of the gas due to the increase in pressure difference between the inlet and the outlet (Kim ‘377, col. 4, lines 25-38).
In addition, the method of instant claim 16-20, which claim forming a hole in a pack case, inserting a vent in the hole, and discharging gas through the vent, wherein the vent/flow path has a central axis, an inlet, and an outlet, wherein the cross-sectional area continuously decreases form the inlet to the outlet, and wherein a first point of the flow path has a first angle of inclination that is smaller than a second angle of inclination at a second point nearer the outlet is not patentably distinct from Kim ‘377 because the instantly claimed method is merely steps of installing and operating the gas venting device of Kim ‘377, and thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the instantly claimed method just by installing and operating the gas venting device of Kim ‘377.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6258477 B1 discloses a battery comprising a pair of an upper vent plate and a lower vent plate mechanically and electrically coupled with each other is provided on the sealing part of-the battery where the mechanical coupling of the pair of the upper vent plate and the lower vent plate is so configured as to rupture and cut off an electric current in the event the internal pressure of the battery case increases beyond a predetermined value (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights