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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 25th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, & 16 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 14, & 15 were cancelled by the Applicant. The 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendment. The amendment to Claim 1 has overcome the 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, & 16 in view of Aota, and thus the rejection has been withdrawn. New rejections follow.
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 1, 3-13, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aota US 2013/0115492 A1, and further in view of Lin US 2018/138492 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Aota discloses a top cover for a battery comprising:
A top cover body (lid 13 Figure 7)
A liquid injection hole (filling hole 28 Figure 7) in the top cover body (see Aota Annotated Figure 7 below)
First side face (fitting part Figure 7 Item 25)
A sealing pin (head part 32 of filling tap 30 Figure 7) accommodated in the liquid injection hole (see Aota Annotated Figure 7 below)
Second side face (peripheral surface Figure 7 Item 32R)
The first side face and the second side face are parallel (see Aota Annotated Figure 7 below)
A gap between the first side face (fitting part Item 25) and the second side face (peripheral surface Item 32R) [0052] (see Aota Annotated Figure 7 below)
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Sealing pin (32) in liquid injection hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gap between second side face (32R) and first side face (25), which are parallel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top cover body (13))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Liquid Injection hole (22))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
655
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aota Annotated Figure 7
A welding part (Figure 14 Item 40) that connects the sealing pin (head part 32) and the top cover body (lid 13)
filling at least part of the gap (see Aota Annotated Figure 14 below)
Aota further discloses that the welding part has a bottom that is distant from the bottom of the gap (see Aota Annotated Figure 14).
[AltContent: textbox (Welding part 40 filling part of gap and distant from bottom of gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
582
1182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aota Annotated Figure 14
However, Aota fails to disclose that the first side face and the second side face are inclined faces.
Lin discloses a sealing assembly for a battery comprises a top cover, a sealing pin (sealing cover plate), and a liquid-injection hole [0053]. Lin discloses a first side face (lateral surface) and a second side face [0065] (see Lin Annotated Figure 3). Lin discloses that the first side faces and the second side faces are both inclined faces [0065] (see Lin Annotated Figure 3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side face having an inclined face)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Second side face having an inclined face)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
598
897
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Lin discloses that having first and second side faces that are inclined allows for easier assembly [0065] and prevention of electrolyte accumulation [0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the first and second side faces of Aota to be inclined faces as suggested by Lin to allow for easier assembly and prevention of electrolyte accumulation.
Aota discloses that the top cover body (Aota’s lid assembly) has a top face (see Modified Aota Annotated partial Figure 7 below). Further, modified Aota discloses, with the modification of Lin’s inclined faces, that the angle between the first side face and the top face is greater than or equal to 90° and less than 180°, as illustrated in Aota Annotated partial Figure 7.
[AltContent: textbox (Side face (modified by angle of Lin) forming an angle with top face between 90°-180°)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Top face of lid assembly)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
563
588
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Aota Annotated partial Figure 7
Regarding Claim 3, Aota discloses that the liquid injection hole (filling hole Item 28 Figure 7) has a first hole (step part 22 Figure 7) and a second hole (through hole 23 Figure 7) [0050] that are connected. Aota discloses that the first hole (step part) has the first side face (step part has fitting part 25 [0050] and accommodated the sealing pin (head part) [0051]. Aota discloses that the top cover (lid) further comprises a sealing column (a shaft part Figure 7 Item 31) accommodated in the second hole (through hole 23) [0051].
Regarding Claim 4, Aota discloses that the first hole (fitting part of step part) has a diameter of 12.1±0.05mm [0059], thus Aota discloses a first hole having a top diameter in the range of 2mm-50mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Aota discloses that the first hole has a diameter of 12.1±0.05mm so that a favorable weld can be obtained [0059], however fails to specifically discloses that the diameter is 7-10mm. In the case where the claimed ranges and the prior art only differ due to “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”. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Gardner vs TEC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have full expectations that devices made from the claims and devices made from the prior art would perform the same given the shared features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter within the claimed range of 7-10mm to achieve a sealing pin and liquid injection hole with the same favorable weld conditions as disclosed by Aota.
Regarding Claim 6, Aota discloses that the first hole (fitting part of step part) has a diameter of 12.1±0.05mm [0059], thus Aota discloses a first hole having a bottom diameter in the range of 2mm-50mm.
Regarding Claim 7, Aota discloses that the first hole has a diameter of 12.1±0.05mm so that a favorable weld can be obtained [0059], however fails to specifically discloses that the diameter is 7-10mm. In the case where the claimed ranges and the prior art only differ due to “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”. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Gardner vs TEC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have full expectations that devices made from the claims and devices made from the prior art would perform the same given the shared features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter within the claimed range of 7-10mm to achieve a sealing pin and liquid injection hole with the same favorable weld conditions as disclosed by Aota.
Regarding Claim 8, Aota discloses that the gap (clearance gap as shown in Annotated Figure 7 above) has a width of 0-0.2mm [0059].
Regarding Claim 9, Aota discloses that the gap (clearance gap as shown in Annotated Figure 7 above) has a width 0.2mm preferably for a favorable weld [0061].
Regarding Claim 10, Aota discloses that the first hole (step part) has a first bottom face (bearing surface Figure 7 Item 24) [0050] and the sealing pin (head part) has a second bottom face (abutting surface Figure 7 Item 32T) [0052]. Aota discloses that the first side face (fitting part 25) and the first bottom face (bearing surface 24) of the first hole form a right (90°) angle, as shown in Figure 7. Aota discloses that the second side face (peripheral surface 32R) and the second bottom face (abutting surface 32T) of the sealing pin (head part) form a right angle, as shown in Figure 7. Thus, Aota’s discloses satisfies M=N+K, wherein M = 90°, N = 90°, and K = 0°.
Regarding Claim 11, Aota discloses that the depth of the first liquid injection hole (step part) and the thickness of the sealing pin (head part) are the same height (Figure 10 Sixth Embodiment or Figure 8 Fourth Embodiment) or that the thickness of the sealing pin (head part) is thinner than the depth of the first liquid injection hole (step part) (Figure 9 Fifth Embodiment). More specifically, Aota discloses, in the sixth or fourth embodiments, that A = B + C is satisfied where A (depth of first liquid injection hole) is equal to B (thickness of sealing pin) and C = 0mm.
Regarding Claim 12, Aota discloses, as mentioned with regards to Claim 11, several embodiments wherein C is equal to or greater than 0mm. Aota discloses that the dimensions, specifically the gap width, the sealing pin thickness, the hole depth, and the projection, are optimizable for welding conditions [0058-0059]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the sealing part and the depth of the first liquid injection hole is a result effective variable and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to achieve a favorable weld condition. See MPEP 2144.05 III C.
Regarding Claim 13, Aota discloses that the sealing pin (head part) comprises a projection (Item 33 Figure 7) [0053] that is used during welding [0053] and extends above the height of the liquid injection hole (the projection is 0.2mm high from the outer surface of the lid) [0059]. Thus Aota discloses that the sealing pin, after welding, exceeds the first liquid injection hole by 0.2mm in height from each side, thus 0.4mm overall. However, Aota fails to specifically disclose that the sealing pin is 1±0.05mm beyond the first liquid injection hole.
Aota further discloses that the sealing pin should go beyond the first injection hole (the projection should have a height [0062] such that the welding part is not short and will cover the gap [0062]. Aota discloses that if the battery is larger, the projection should be large to correspond to a larger gap [0062], thus Aota discloses that the sealing pin can be beyond the first liquid injection hole (projection can be higher) than the specifically disclosed 0.4mm.
Aota discloses that corresponding the height of the projection with the size of the gap and weld portion creates a favorable weld condition [0059].
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the height of the projection of the sealing part is a result effective variable and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to achieve a favorable weld condition. See MPEP 2144.05 III C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a height of the projection within the claimed range to achieve a favorable weld condition as suggested by Aota.
Regarding Claim 16, Aota discloses that the top cover (lid assembly) is used in a secondary battery [0045] to seal the opening [0045]. Aota discloses that the battery comprises a housing (can with an opening) [0045]. Aota discloses that there is an electrode assembly in the housing (electrode winding group) [0045], wherein the electrode assembly comprises a negative electrode sheet, a positive electrode sheet, and a separator between the positive and negative electrodes [0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Aota does not disclose amended Claim 1, specifically that the first side face and second side face are inclined faces, and that the top cover body has a top face with an included angle between the first side face and the top face greater than 90° and less than 180°. Examiner respectfully points out that Aota is not relied upon for these claim limitations, and is instead modified by Lin to provide a top cover for a battery with inclined faces within range of the claimed angle. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Lin has a welding portion and implements “full-length welding” along the welding portion to seal the top cover and sealing cover-plate, and does not leave a distance from a bottom of the gap. Examiner respectfully points out that Lin discloses a welding portion (Figure 4 Item 400), as mentioned by Applicant, and describes the welding method as “full-length welding” [0004]. Examiner additionally points out that Lin discloses that the welding portion is an annular gap formed at the upper surface of the top cover (Figure 14 Item 10) and the sealing cover plate (Figure 14 Item 20) [0054], as noted in Annotated Figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
250
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Similarly, Aota discloses a welding part at the upper surface of the top cover and upper surface of the sealing pin, as noted in Annotated Figure 14 in the rejection above. Thus, Lin discloses a welding portion at a location similar that of Aota, wherein there is a distance between the bottom of the weld portion and the bottom of the gap. Additionally, Lin discloses that “full length welding” is implemented along the welding portion to seal the top cover and the sealing cover plate [0054]. Examiner points out that Lin is understood to be referring to the “full length welding” as being implemented along annular gap of the welding portion, and not the depth of the interface between the top cover and the sealing cover plate, and “full length welding” is the welding technique used by Lin (as opposed to pulse welding, for example) wherein there is a continuous joint instead of intermittent sections, as evidenced by Welding Answers “Weld Design: Size and Strength Considerations”. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 September 2025