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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the remarks filed on 7/21/2026.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. With 7-10 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the individual references separately. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that the glass seal disclosed by Catanzarit somehow would not work in the arrangement disclosed by SKINLO because "it is contrary to Skinlo's objective" of providing the "first seal, the second seal, and the third sea can act together to prevent liquids in the battery case from leaking through the hole". The examiner is not certain how this statement precludes the use of a glass cell for safety reasons. PERRY is merely used as a reference to the physical properties of the materials and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that PERRY could be used in order to ascertain the physical properties of the materials in order to choose a type of glass or ceramic that was used by CATANZARIT in a similar way. The applicant's piecemeal arguments against the combination of the references are not persuasive and fails to show that a prima facia case of obviousness is not present in the use of a glass seal, which is common not only in the use of battery cases, but in industry in general wherever pressure relief is need for controlled release.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8053107 B1, SKINLO et al. view of US 4127702 A, CATANZARIT with Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W, (2007) Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook as a reference.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 18. SKINLO [cols 5-6 lines 58-13] discloses in annotated figure 3 depicted below a battery, comprising:
[col 3 line 17] a conductive piece called a pin (12), an electrode assembly [claim 10] and a housing [col 5 line 62] called a case with a body 32; wherein the housing comprises
a first wall, a second wall and a sidewall connected to the first wall and the second wall respectively;
the first wall and the second wall are disposed opposite to each other along a first direction;
an accommodation cavity is formed between the first wall, the second wall and the sidewall; and the electrode assembly is disposed in the accommodation cavity, wherein the first wall is provided with an opening called a hole (36), and in the first direction, a projection of the conductive piece (12) is at least partly located in a region of a projection of the opening;
the battery further comprises
a sealing structure (circled in the annotated drawing depicted below) and [col 6 line 25] an insulation piece called an insulating sleeve (10),
the sealing structure is disposed at an end of the first wall towards the conductive piece (12), the sealing structure comprises a fitting section, called a ferrule (14) and a transition section called a cover (34); the fitting section (14) contacts the insulation piece (10); and the transition section (34) connects the fitting section (14) and the first wall, wherein the transition section provides an elastic force for the fitting section; in the instant case the force would be the static forces holding the case in place as the case is made from metal which has elastic properties.
SKINLO does not disclose a thermal expansion coefficient of the sealing structure and a thermal expansion coefficient of the conductive piece is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the insulation piece, and that the sealing structure and conductive piece are configured to crack the insulation piece upon a rise in temperature of 20 °C to 150 °C.
CATANZARIT [title] discloses A Sealed Self-venting Electrolytic Battery Has Insulator Which Cracks To Vent Excessive Pressure Without Breaking Bond Between Insulator And Terminals where
CATANZARIT [abstract] discloses a casing, two terminals and components within the casing for producing a voltage across the terminals as shown in figure 2.
CATANZARIT [col 4 line 57] discloses an insulator (36) in figure 2 that is made of glass which also reads on the limitation of claim 16.
CATANZARIT [col 4 lines 23-35] where the insulator is structurally weaker than the rest of the casing in order to crack when the pressure exceed the design specifications. This is done in order to safely relieve the pressure in the device.
CATANZARIT does not explicitly disclose the physical property values of the thermal coefficient (which are referenced by PERRY below), and teaches the that this design is intended for the controlled pressure relief, it is the opinion of the examiner that due to the physical properties of glass, and or ceramic combined with the physical properties of the metal case that this configuration would function for overheating as well.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Material tables for thermal expansion coefficients can be found in Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook among other engineering sources.
PERRY discloses on page 990 ((10-118) table 10-52 Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Metals) that stainless at ambient temperatures has a coefficient of 9.11 µin/(in⋅°F)
(please note micro inches) and on page 997 ((10-126) table 1-55 Thermal Expansion Coefficients: Nonmetals) that glass has a coefficient of 9-11 in/(in⋅°F) which is magnitudes greater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the glass insulator disclosed by CATANZARIT in the battery disclosed by SKINLO in order to utilize the Thermal Expansion Coefficients referenced by PERRY which are well known in the art before the effective filing date in order to make a battery device that would safely fail in a controlled manner when overheating.
Regarding claim 2. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the sealing structure and the first wall are integrated as shown in the annotated figure depicted below.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 19. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the annotated figure depicted below discloses
as viewed along a direction perpendicular to the first direction:
the transition section extends away from the electrode assembly, and the fitting section extends toward the electrode assembly; or
the transition section extends toward the electrode assembly, and
the fitting section extends away from the electrode assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
629
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 3, wherein the annotated figure depicted below discloses the transition section comprises:
a first sub-section extending from the first wall and away from the electrode assembly; and
a second sub-section extending from the first sub-section to the insulation piece; wherein the fitting section is disposed at an end of the second sub-section, the end being towards the insulation piece.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 4, wherein the annotated figure depicted in the rejection above discloses the sealing structure satisfies:
an angle between the first sub-section and the second sub-section is 90° which falls with the claimed range of 85° to 175°;
Regarding claim 6. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 4, wherein the second sub-section is in an arc shape protruding from the accommodation cavity in the annotated figure depicted below.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 12. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 1.
SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT does not disclose wherein a dimension of the sealing structure in the first direction is 10 µm to 1 mm, or
a length by which the sealing structure extends from the first wall to the insulation piece is 10 µm to 5 mm as claimed in claim 12
SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT does not teach a dimension of the sealing structure. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 13. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein in the annotated figure depicted below discloses when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first direction, a distance from an end of the sealing structure away from the electrode assembly to the electrode assembly is less than a distance from an end of the insulation piece away from the electrode assembly to the electrode assembly.
PNG
media_image4.png
614
845
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14 and 20. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claims 1 and 18. However, neither explicitly disclose that,
a thermal expansion coefficient of the insulation piece is -10x10-6/K to 10x10-6/K, and
a thermal expansion coefficient of the sealing structure is 10x10-6/K to 40x10-6/K.
However, because both the reference and the instant application use the same materials for the insulating and conductive pieces it would be inherent that the thermal expansion coefficients expressed in both claims 14 and 20 in the instant application. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15. SKINLO modified by CATANZARIT discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sealing structure or the conductive piece comprises a metal material SKINLO [col 4 line 16] discloses titanium.
Regarding claim 17. SKINLO discloses the battery according to claim 1.
Wherein SKINLO [claim 10] discloses the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode and a second electrode,
the first electrode is electrically connected to the housing, and
the second electrode is electrically connected to the conductive piece.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights