DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
The specification of 10/1/2025 is entered for reasons outlined in the applicants remarks of 10/1/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 17 and “a battery”, applicant’s remark that “the term "for a battery" expressly indicates that the claimed apparatus is configured for use with a battery, although the battery itself is not claimed as an element of claim 1” is noted. Examiner recognizes this argument has some merit; however, such a reading then leads to issues with claims 12 and 13 which recite limitations regarding orientation of elements relative to “the battery”. As such, the rejection is maintained below. In lieu of amending claim 17, applicant may choose to amend claims 12 and 13 such that the orientation of elements is not relative to the battery but instead another element such as the valve sheet.
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. On the bottom of page 8 of the remarks, applicant states in “Ll, notch 11 and notch 12 are independent structures, each forming a separate closed line (see LI, Fig. 3)”. It is not entirely followed how Fig. 3 alone of LI shows independent structures, as the lines of LI are colinear for much of the oval when seen from above. However, the amendment notably now requires a continuous closed line. LI’s line, while reading on closed from a two-dimensional standpoint, is not continuous as previously relied upon. Following are rejections with consideration given to the amended “continuous closed line”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “continous” is a misspelling and should read “continuous” in both instances it is used.
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: following amendments to claim 1, “the closed line” should read “the continuous closed line”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1,5-9,11-15, and 17 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 1 recites the limitation “the first score-line and the second score-line are connected to form a continuous closed line”. It is unclear how two lines may be both distinct from each other and form a single continuous closed line. The definition of continuous is “marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence” (Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuous). Notably the instant specification does not disclose a special definition for continuous, nor even use the term continuous, and the way the line(s) may be connected such that they are both distinct and continuous cannot be readily ascertained.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a battery”. It is unclear if this is the same battery as that of claim 1. Notably two other dependent claims, 12 and 13, refer to “the battery” in reference to claim 1.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency.
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 1, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LI (US 20220059900 A1, supplied with an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses a security apparatus for a battery (“battery vent structure” [0002]), comprising a first score-line (second notch 12, which corresponds to most but not all of the oval) and a second score-line (first notch 11) that are disposed on the security apparatus (Fig. 3), wherein the first score-line and the second score-line are connected to form a continuous closed line (Fig. 3 wherein the line is closed and continuous as there is a vertical transition between the depth of first notch 11 and second notch 12), the first score-line and the second score-line divide the security apparatus into an outer frame (Fig. 3, outermost section of vent) and a valve sheet (Fig. 3, inner area referred to as “rupture disc” [0025]), a thickness of the security apparatus at the second score-line is greater than a thickness of the security apparatus at the first score-line (Figs. 4 and 5 showing the thickness of notch 11 section is greater than the than thickness of notch 12 section), and the valve sheet is capable of being separated from the outer frame along the first score-line and being kept in connection with the outer frame at the second score-line (“the straight-line portion of the first notch 11, which is not covered by the second notch 12, facilitates the rupture disc turning over, and also connect to the rolled vent fragments” [0025]);
and wherein the second score-line is a polyline (in three-dimensions, the first notch 11 and the transition areas to each to the depth of second notch 12 correspond to a polyline of three segments, see the illustration below created by the examiner) and comprises a main score-line (first notch 11 at a height/depth different than second notch 12) and two bending segments (in three dimensions the segments that transition from the height/depth of first notch 11, noted as h in Fig. 6, to the height/depth of second notch 12, noted as H in Fig. 7), and the two bending segments are each connected to the first score-line at an angle and are each connected to the main score-line at an angle (by being connected the segments are at angles to both the first and second notches) to form the continuous closed line (the line is closed in two dimensions as seen from above and continuous in three dimensions).
Side view illustration showing connecting segments:
PNG
media_image1.png
395
1287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, LI further discloses the valve sheet protrudes toward one side of the outer frame to form a projection structure (Fig. 7 as well as “a cambered surface” [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, LI further discloses the outer frame has a first inner side surface and a first outer side surface, the valve sheet has a second inner side surface and a second outer side surface, the first inner side surface and the second inner side surface are both located on a side facing an inside of a battery, the first outer side surface and the second outer side surface are both located on a side facing an outside of the battery, a first height difference exists between the first inner side surface and the second inner side surface, and a second height difference exists between the first outer side surface and the second outer side surface (Fig. 7 shows a sectional view where the bottom of the battery is the right of the figure per [0029] and in Fig. 7 the inside and outside heights of the valve section are each different than the inside and outside heights of the outer frame).
Regarding claim 17, LI further discloses a battery, comprising the security apparatus of claim 1 (“battery vent structure” [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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of IKEDA (US 20110236734 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LI does not expressly teach a third score-line.
IKEDA is directed to a safety valve for a battery like LI. IKEDA discloses Fig. 3 wherein an inner annular groove 13 is connected to an outer annular groove 12 via connecting grooves 15 and 16. IKEDA further discloses Fig. 4 which shows the thickness of the inner annular groove is greater than then thickness of the outer annular groove 12. Notably the figures of IKEDA demonstrate a symmetrical pattern.
IKEDA teaches “a deformation stress is applied to the intersection between the inner annular groove and the connecting groove in a concentrated manner” [0084] and as a result “the thinnest outer annular groove is broken so that safety valve is operated rapidly” [0084].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inner annular groove and connecting grooves of IKEDA in the valve of LI to ensure the rapid operation of the safety valve.
Therefore, modified LI discloses a third score-line is disposed on the valve sheet (as taught be IKEDA), a thickness of the security apparatus at the third score-line is greater than the thickness of the security apparatus at the first score-line (as taught be IKEDA), the third score-line is connected to the first score-line (as taught be IKEDA), and the third score-line forms a symmetrical pattern with respect to a center of the valve sheet (as taught be IKEDA).
Regarding claim 6, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and IKEDA further discloses the third score-line comprises sub-score-lines, the sub-score-lines are each a straight line segment or are each an arc line, and two ends of each of the sub-score-lines are both connected to the first score-line (connecting grooves 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 7, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and IKEDA further discloses the third score-line comprises a closed score-line (inner annular groove 13) and score-lines for connection (connecting grooves 15 and 16), the closed score-line is located in a middle of the valve sheet and spaced away from an edge of the valve sheet, the score-lines for connection are radially disposed around the closed score-line, one end of each of the score-lines for connection is connected to the closed score-line, and the other end of each of the score-lines for connection is connected to the first score-line (Fig. 3 notably meets all limitations).
Claims 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of SODE (US 20130196188 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified LI does not expressly teach a first projection and a second projection.
SODE is directed to an explosion-proof valve for a battery like LI. SODE discloses Figs. 2A and 2B with three protrusions: second ridge 44, first ridge 43, and central elevation 42. Notably, as shown in Fig. 3, each of the protrusions are inside of second groove 46 and the first ridge and central elevation are inside first groove 45. SODE discloses “first ridge 43 and the second ridge 44 each have a ring shape extending along the periphery of the central elevation 42 and are protruded upward from the reduced thickness section 41” [0058] and “first ridge 43 and the second ridge 44 are portions formed for removing excess metal (spread away metal) produced in the formation of the first groove 45 and the second groove 46” [0058].
SODE teaches “the shape of the explosion-proof valve 4 is not limited thereto and may be oval or ellipse” [0119]. SODE further teaches that due to the design “a reduction is made in an amount of strains introduced at the formation” [0013] and “since a portion where the groove is formed is even further reduced in thickness, the rupture of the groove is ensured when the internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value” [0014].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the first groove 45 of SODE inside of the notch of LI, which corresponds to the second groove 44 of SODE, as well as the dividing the single protrustion of LI into two ridges as taught by SODE in order to limit strains during production and ensuring rupture when internal pressure is excessively high.
Therefore, modified LI discloses the projection structure comprises a first projection (first ridge 43 as taught by SODE) and a second projection spaced apart (second ridge 44 as taught by SODE0, an auxiliary score-line is disposed between the first projection and the second projection (first groove 45 as taught by SODE), the second projection is disposed between the closed line (as taught by modified LI) and the auxiliary score-line, and the first projection and the second projection are both spaced from the closed line and the auxiliary score-line (as taught by SODE).
Regarding claim 11, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SODE further discloses the closed line and the auxiliary score-line respectively surround a closed region, and the auxiliary score-line is disposed inside the closed region surrounded by the closed line, or the auxiliary score-line is disposed outside the closed region surrounded by the closed line (Fig. 2A as well as “first groove 45 and the second groove 46 are concentric” [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SODE further discloses the first projection and the second projection both protrude from an inside of a battery toward an outside of the battery (Fig. 3 as well as “first ridge 43 and the second ridge 44 each … are protruded upward from the reduced thickness section 41” [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SODE further discloses the first projection has a first concave surface and a first convex surface, the second projection has a second concave surface and a second convex surface, the first concave surface and the second concave surface are both located inside the battery, and the first convex surface and the second convex surface are both located outside the battery (Fig. 3 as well as “first ridge 43 and the second ridge 44 each … are protruded upward from the reduced thickness section 41” [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, modified LI discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SODE further discloses the first projection is integrally formed (Fig. 3 wherein the ridge is integral to the valve).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721