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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated January 30, 2026, Claims 7, 15, 16, and 18 are amended. Claims 24-25 are added. Claims 1-6 were previously withdrawn. Claims 7-25 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The rejections in the Office Action dated December 10, 2025 have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. As indicated in the Advisory Action dated February 12, 2026, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as provided in the recited Office Action; thus, those rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12-16, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. [KR20180018280A, dated February 21, 2018, machine translation relied upon previously provided], hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang discloses a secondary battery [Hwang title, abstract, throughout] comprising:
a can [Hwang 0007, 0037, and throughout, Figs. 1-3];
an electrode assembly accommodated in the can [Hwang 0008, 0057, Fig. 3, JR (jelly roll) and throughout] ; and
a cap assembly [Hwang 0037 and throughout, Figs. 1-3, cap assembly 120] comprising a top plate having at least one notch formed thereon [Hwang 0008, 0043, 0054 and throughout, Figs. 1-3, circular metal plate with central portion 200 and peripheral portion 300 with notch 310], a bottom plate arranged under the top plate [Hwang 0044, 0058 and throughout, Figs. 2-3, subplate 400] and having a contact portion in which a portion of the bottom plate surface protrudes toward the top plate and comes into contact with the top plate, the top plate disposed on an outside of the bottom plate, [Hwang 0044-0048, Fig. 2-3, Protrusion 420 contacts central region 200 of top plate 200/300, and top plate 200/300 is not within the bottom plate 400 and wraps around the bottom plate. Further, with the cap assembly applied to a battery, the top plate would be considered on an outside, whereas the bottom plate would be considered on an inside. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is top plate 200/300 is disposed on an outside of bottom plate 400.], and
an insulation plate arranged between the top plate and the bottom plate to insulate the top plate and the bottom plate from each other except for the contact portion [Hwang 0043, 0058-0061, and throughout, Figs. 2-3, insulation plate 600],
wherein the cap assembly further comprises a support member inserted between the top plate and the insulation plate to support the top plate [Hwang 0043, 0047 and throughout, Figs. 2-3, support 500]
wherein, in a plan view of the cap assembly, at least one of the insulation plate or the support member is disposed radially inward of the notch and is spaced apart from the notch [Hwang Figs. 2-3, see annotated Fig. below. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang Fig. 2 is a significant portion of both the insulation plate 600 and the support member 500 are disposed radially inward of the notch 310. Further, at least a portion of support 500 is spaced apart from the notch 310 as indicated above. Further, insulation plate 600 is considered entirely spaced apart from notch 310. Thus, Hwang meets the claim requirements.].
PNG
media_image1.png
420
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member is arranged on the inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can, based on the notch [Hwang Figs. 2-3, Support 500 is on an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can relative to the notch as shown in the modified Fig. above.].
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the insulation plate and the support member have a circular ring shape[Hwang 0043-0044, 0049, and throughout, Figs. 1-3, 6, Hwang discloses a cylindrical battery and the top plate 200-300 [Fig. 1] and insulation plate 600 [Fig. 6] are circular. Further, Hwang discloses a central hole 510 surrounded by the support portion 500 that is in close contact with circular peripheral portion of plate 200/300. Further, Figs 2-3 show support portion 500 goes all the way to the bent portion 1221 of the top plate 200/300, which requires circularity an ring shape due to the holes 530 and 510.], and the contact portion of the bottom plate penetrates the insulation plate and the support member to be in contact with the top plate [Hwang 0018, 0045, Figs. 2-3 and throughout, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is contact portion 420 of bottom plate 400 protrudes through the central hole in insulation plate 600 and the central hole 510 in the support member 500 to be in contact with the join area 220.].
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the support member is arranged between the notch and the contact portion [Hwang Figs. 2-3 show the support member 500 extends between the notch 310 and the contact portion 220 (see below), and the top plate is shaped to surround an edge of the support member [Hwang Figs. 2-3, top plate 200/300 has bent portion 1221 shaped around support 500 (see below)].
PNG
media_image2.png
348
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein in the support member, a portion of a surface thereof being in contact with the notch is spaced apart from the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, Fig. 4].
PNG
media_image3.png
235
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a plurality of through-holes formed therethrough at positions corresponding to the positions of the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, 0059, Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530. As shown in Fig. 4, the ventilation hole 530 is located near notch 310. Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch, which reads on the throughhole 530 corresponding to the notch [0049-0054, 0059]. Further, Hwang teaches a ring shaped notch 310 as shown in Fig. 1 and multiple throughholes 610 as shown in Fig. 6 and further discloses the ventilation hole 610 is arrange opposite to ventilation hole 530. The skilled artisan would therefore expect that ventilation hole 530 is multiple ventilation holes corresponding to throughholes 610 to support rupturing notch 310 at any region of notch 310. Otherwise, there the plurality of throughholes in 610 would be unnecessary and notch 310 would not need to be circular.].
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein at least one surface of the insulation plate is in contact with the bottom plate [Hwang Fig. 2, The bottom surface of insulation plate 600 is in contact with the top of bottom plate 400.]
Regarding Claim 15, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the cap assembly further comprising a cap-up disposed on an outside of the top plate [Hwang 0008, Hwang discloses a cap-up portion 124 which is the terminal on the battery top covering the cap assembly.].
Regarding Claim 16, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the top plate is in contact with the lower edge of the cap-up, and is bent in the upper direction of the cap-up parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the can and is in contact with the upper edge of the cap-up [Hwang 0008, Hwang discloses two options for how the cap-up 124 attaches to the top plate including one where the top plate 200/300 (also described as the safety band 122, see Figs. 1-2) is folded over to cover the cap portion 124. For such configuration, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is that the top plate 200/300 is bent in the upper direction parallel to the longitudinal central axis and contacts both the lower edge and upper edge of the cap up portion. See modified Fig. 2 for broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang [0008].
PNG
media_image4.png
459
799
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the contact portion is electrically connected to the bottom plate by welding [Hwang 0044-0047].
Regarding Claim 18, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein a sum of a diameter of the contact portion and a width of the support member is 60% of more of a diameter of a bottom of the top plate provided with the contact portion [Hwang Fig. 2, The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a diameter of a bottom of the top plate provided with the contact portion” is the diameter of the top plate where it touches the contact portion, which is the same as the diameter of the contact portion. Further, the width of the support member 500 is the same as the inside diameter of the top plate 200/300. Therefore, the sum of the diameter of the contact portion 220 and the interior width of the top plate 200/300 is inherently larger than 200% of the diameter of the contact portion 220 (a diameter of the top plate provided with the contact portion 220). Thus, Hwang anticipates the claim limitation. See below.].
PNG
media_image5.png
336
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein an edge of the top plate is bent parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the can in a direction toward above the electrode assembly, and wrapping around an edge of the support member [Hwang Fig. 2, see below, where the electrode assembly is below the cap assembly].
PNG
media_image6.png
323
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a ring-shape having a width greater than that of the insulation plate [Hwang 0043, 0046, 0058, Hwang discloses a cylindrical battery and the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang 0043 and throughout and Figs. 1-8 is the cap assembly top plate 200/300, support plate 500, insulation plate 600, and bottom plate 400 are all circular. Support member 500 has a central hole 510, making it ring shaped. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 2 is the diameter of support plate 500 is the same as the internal diameter of the top plate. The diameter of the insulation plate 600 is only required to be the same width as the bottom plate 400 but it can go up to the end of portion 126 of support member 500 facing the longitudinal axis [0058]. Thus, Hwang anticipates the limitation. See modified Fig. below.
PNG
media_image7.png
336
545
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claims 7-10.
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 10 but is silent to wherein the support member is welded to the insulation plate[The limitation welded is treated as a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of welded per Merriam Webster online dictionary is to unite, such as a forming a joint between parts. Hwang teaches two separate parts (500 and 600) and therefore does not teach the structure required, joined parts. However, the uniting of Hwang’s support member 500 and insulating member 600 would read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of welded since the structure of the final product would be the same whether it was welded or joined by another process.
Hwang does not disclose welding or integrating the support member 500 to the insulating member 600; however, making the support member 500 and insulating member 600 integral by joining would be an obvious modification to Hwang per MPEP 2144.04 V B, making integral. It would be expected by the skilled artisan that the support member and insulating member would still provide the same functions of supporting and insulating if they are made integral by welding or joined by some other method. Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530 in the support member serves as a passage for internal gas or liquid/fluid electrolyte separate from central hole 510 which is for the contact portion [Hwang 0049-0051, 0059]. Further, the skilled artisan would expect that joining the insulating member 600 and support member 500 to make them integral would prevent gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion during normal operation. Further, joining the two parts such that they are integral could simplify the manufacturing of the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weld/join Hwang’s adjacent support member 500 and insulation plate 600 to make them integral for the expected benefit of more efficient manufacturing and to prevent gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion in the event of a separation between the insulating member 600 and support member 500 due to expulsion of gas or electrolyte [Hwang 0049-0051]. See MPEP 2143 (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
For purposes of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection of Claim 13 is provided.
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a plurality of through-holes formed therethrough at positions corresponding to the positions of the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, 0059, Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530. As shown in Fig. 4, the ventilation hole 530 is located near notch 310. Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch, which reads on the throughhole 530 corresponding to the notch [0049-0054, 0059]. Further, Hwang teaches a ring shaped notch 310 as shown in Fig. 1 and multiple throughholes 610 as shown in Fig. 6 and further discloses the ventilation hole 610 is arrange opposite to ventilation hole 530. The skilled artisan would therefore expect that ventilation hole 530 is multiple ventilation holes corresponding to throughholes 610 to support rupturing notch 310 at any region of notch 310 instead of only one throughhole region. Otherwise, there the plurality of throughholes in 610 would be unnecessary and notch 310 would not need to be circular. If Hwang’s throughhole is taken to be only one throughhole (such that a basis under 35USC102 is not present), one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that modifying Hwang to have a plurality of through holes is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 VI B, duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that modifying Hwang to have a plurality of throughholes 530 in support member 500 distributed over a circumference of the cap assembly to predicably rupture circular notch 310 to reduce the risk of explosion of the battery [Hwang 0005, 0049, 0055].
Regarding Claim 23, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7. Hwang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the support member and the insulation plate. In relying on what Hwang Fig. 2 reasonably teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, given that the support member has to be thicker than, thinner than, or equal to the thickness of the insulation plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an end cap assembly where the support member 500 is thicker than the insulation member 600 with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, it would be obvious that the thickness of the support member and the thickness of the insulation plates are both result effective variables dependent on the design of the cap assembly, such as the thickness of the other parts of the cap assembly, and the materials used. For example, if the support member 500 is too thin or too thick, it cannot provide a support function for supporting the structure of the cap assembly. Likewise, if the insulating plate 600 is too thin it cannot provide sufficient insulation between the top plate and bottom plate to prevent short circuiting [Hwang 0058-0061and throughout]. If the insulating plate is too thick it could apply too much stress to the connection tab [Fig. 9]. Further, the thickness of the insulation plate depends on the insulation properties of the material used for the insulation plate. A material with poor insulative properties requires more thickness than an insulation plate made with a highly insulative material. Determining the workable thickness relationship between the insulating plate and the support member can be determined through routine experimentation by balancing the needed insulation in consideration of the spacing and thickness of each of the components of the cap assembly, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, routine optimization.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Sato et al. US20060078787A1, hereinafter Sato.
Regarding Claim 19, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7 but is silent to the material for the support member. Sato discloses a cap assembly for a secondary battery including a support plate 16 [Sato 0041-0044, Figs. 1-2]. Sato teaches the support plate 16 is made of stainless steel or aluminum [0044]. Sato’s teachings demonstrate that aluminum is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery per MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sato’s teachings of a support member made from aluminum with Hwang’s battery with the predictable success of a secondary battery with sufficient support of a rupture plate [Sato abstract, 0043, and throughout; Hwang 0043 and throughout]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Harada et al. US5821008A, hereinafter Harada.
Regarding Claim 20, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7 but is silent to the material for the support member. Harada discloses a cap assembly for a secondary battery including a support plate 6 [Harada column 5 and throughout, Fig. 2]. Harada teaches an example with a polypropylene support plate [Harada column 9-10, Table 2]. Further, Harada teaches polypropylene has high cut-off pressure, resistant to breaking as compared to the other materials tested [Harada Table 2]. Harada’s teachings demonstrate that polypropylene is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery per MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Harada’s teachings of a support member made from polypropylene with Hwang’s battery with the predictable success of a secondary battery with sufficient support of a rupture plate [Harada column 6 and throughout, Hwang 0043 and throughout]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25 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.
Claim 24 requires wherein, in the plan view, both the insulation plate and the support member are disposed radially inward of the notch and are each spaced apart from the notch. Claim 24 depends on claim 7 and the closest prior art is Hwang as provided above. In Hwang Figs. 2-3, a significant portion of the insulation plate 600 and support member 500 are radially inward of notch 310. The insulation plate 600 is spaced apart from the notch but the support plate 500 is in contact with the notch. It would not be obvious to modify Hwang where the support plate is spaced apart from the notch 310 because it would be unclear if such modification would change the operation and support of the top plate 200/300, especially during venting. Thus, the invention of claim 24 is differentiated over Hwang.
Claim 25 requires wherein, in the plan view the support member is disposed entirely radially inward of the notch. Claim 25 depends on claim 7 and the closest prior art is Hwang as provided above. In Hwang Figs. 2-3, a significant portion of the support member 500 is radially inward of notch 310; however, the support member is not entirely radially inward of the notch. It would not be obvious to modify Hwang where the support plate is entirely radially inward of notch 310 because it would be unclear if such modification would change the operation and support of the top plate 200/300, especially during venting. Thus, the invention of claim 25 is differentiated over Hwang.
An updated search did not find additional prior art relevant to claims 24-25. The Examiner consulted with Brian Ohara regarding the allowable subject matter in claims 24-25 as described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments provided January 30, 2026 were responded to in the Advisory Action dated February 12, 2026 including Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, which are further addressed in the Status of Application section above.
For clarity of the record, the Examiner’s responses to arguments are provided below.
in response to applicant's argument on pgs. 8-10 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-overlapping inward positioning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, as provided above, a significant portion of both Hwang’s support member 500 and insulting member 600 are disposed radially inward of the notch 310 and thus meet the claim limitation “wherein, in a plan view of the cap assembly, at least one of the insulation plate or the support member is disposed radially inward of the notch”. Further, Hwang’s insulation plate 600 would be considered spaced apart from the notch as required by instant claim 7. Rejection of instant claim 7 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pg. 11 regarding the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner does not find the arguments presented persuasive and respectfully disagrees. As provided in the Office Actions dated 7/16/2025 and 12/10/2025, the Examiner provided an anticipation rejection and, for purpose of compact prosecution, an obviousness rejection. Regarding anticipation, Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch [0049-0054], which reads on the support through-hole “corresponding to positions of the notch”. This is explicitly described in Hwang 0049: “In addition, the cap-down portion (126) includes a ventilation hole (530) that is spaced apart from the central hole (510) and serves as a passage through which internal gas or liquid flows out to the outside. When the secondary battery malfunctions, high-pressure gas or liquid or fluid electrolyte is filled and increases the pressure, thereby applying operating pressure or rupture pressure to the safety band (122) through the ventilation hole. “ As shown in Hwang Fig. 1, safety band 122 includes rupture notch 310, which corresponds to the ventilation holes 530 shown in Figs. 2-3. Additional description of the rupture dynamics with regard to the ventilation hole is provided in Hwang 0050-0054 as provided in the recited Office Actions. Further, in Hwang Fig. 2 at minimum there are two throughholes 530 shown in Fig. 2 and throughout, which reads on the claimed “plurality of through-holes”. Thus, anticipation of the claim is met. As additional evidence of anticipation, as provided in the recited Office Actions, since notch 310 is ring-shaped and Fig. 6 shows the insulation plate 600 has multiple throughholes 610, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is that there is a through-hole 530 in support plate 500 corresponding to each through-hole 610. Therefore, the Examiner provided sufficient evidence of anticipation of claim 13. Therefore, the Examiner finds Applicant’s conclusion that Hwang lacks the correspondence and distribution in the support member to be evidentially false.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 13, as provided in recited Office Actions, even if Hwang’s invention as described above does not have a through-hole 530 in support plate 500 at each of the multiple through-holes 610 in the insulation plate, as described in the recited previous Office Action, it would be obvious to provide through-holes 530 distributed circumferentially for the purpose of providing a path through both insulation plate and the support plate to pressurize the notch 310 for controlled rupture. As also provided above, Hwang explicitly teaches the controlled rupture of notch 310 and with gas escaping through throughhole 530 [Hwang 0049-0054]. For such duplication of throughholes 530, the Examiner recited MPEP 2144.04 VI, B, duplication of parts, for the purpose of providing a predictable rupturing of the battery. This duplication is supported by MPEP 2144.04 VI,B since duplicating the ventilation holes 530 to correspond with the multiple through-holes 610 in the insulation plate would perform the exact same function of providing a path for gas to escape to prevent explosion of the battery [Hwang 0050 and throughout]. Therefore, in the recited Office Action, the Examiner has factually supported a prima facie conclusion of obviousness in addition to the anticipation rejection. Thus, the anticipation and obviousness rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pgs. 11-12 regarding the rejection of claim 18, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments provided. Applicant specifically argues regarding embodiments 1 and embodiments 2/3 providing distinction over the prior art due to geometry as provided in instant Figs. 3-4. In Hwang, the width of the support plate extends over the entire width of the top plate [Figs. 1-3, specifically see annotated Fig. provided in the recited Office Action for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the width of Hwang’s support member 500]; thus, Hwang reads on the claim as provided in the recited Office Action and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Claim 18, the Examiner has referenced the instant specification to attempt to advance prosecution and has the following observations: Unlike Hwang, in the Instant Application, the support member 590 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 is a ring that is not the full width of the top plate. It appears that the limitations of claim 18 are directed to this embodiment. The Applicant’s embodiment shown in Fig. 5 is most similar to Hwang. Though the geometry in the embodiment in Instant Fig. 3 is different from Hwang’s invention, the differences are not claimed. Further, claim 18 references a width of the support plate, which is not defined by the claim. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a diameter of a bottom of the top plate provided with the contact portion” is that only the portion of the bottom of the top plate in contact with the contact portion. To expedite prosecution, the Examiner recommends amending claim 18 to show distinction over the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 11, that the instant application is distinct over the prior art of Hwang due to the limitation “welded”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Applicant references AWS A3.0 to define welding. AWS A3.0 should be provided for the record as evidence. Secondly, the claim requires the support member is welded to the insulation plate. The Applicant recites [0057] as evidence; however, [0057] references ultrasonic welding of the insulation member 570 to plates 530 and 550, which are not the support plate 590. Further, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 and described in [0057], the support member is not welded to the insulation plate (Instant Fig. 3, support plate 590 and insulation plate 570 are not proximate and welding is not disclosed in the instant specification.). The Applicant also recites [0079], which states “Contact portions of the support member 940 and the insulation plate 930 may be combined by ultrasonic welding, etc.” for the embodiment shown in Fig. 5. Applicant argues that such description indicates a fused interface that is structurally distinct from Hwang.
While the Examiner agrees that Hwang does not disclose welding; the Examiner recited MPEP 2144.04 V, B as justification for the obviousness of making Hwang’s support member 500 and insulating member 600 integral for the benefit of preventing gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion during normal operation and simplifying the manufacturing of the battery. The benefit of a sealed region between insulating member 600 and support member 500 is evidenced by Hwang’s disclosed thermal compression of the insulating layer with the cap-down portion 126 [Hwang 0061 and throughout], which includes support part 500 [Hwang 0047 and throughout], for purpose of adhesion and sealing of the cap assembly [Hwang 0061]. Thus, Hwang teaches the advantage making support 500 and insulation plate 600 integral. Even further, one of ordinary skill the art would know that for the rupture mechanism break notch 310 to function as disclosed, the other portions of the cap assembly would have to remain sealed to control the movement of gas through the holes provided in the cap-down portion 126 (support part 500) and the holes provided in the insulation member [Hwang 0059 and throughout] to produce the required pressure against the notch to rupture the break notch as required [Hwang 0054 and throughout]. For the reasons provided, evidence of obviousness making the insulation member and support member integral outweighs evidence of distinction of the claimed invention and the obviousness rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pg. 12 regarding the combination of Sato with Hwang for the rejection claim 19, the Applicant argues that Sato does not teach the claimed inward/non-overlap geometry or the ratio/edge-wrapping architecture. 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). Further, Applicant references non-overlap geometry which is not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, Hwang anticipates claim 7, which includes the claimed support member. Hwang does not disclose the material of the support member. Sato’s teachings demonstrate that aluminum is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery and the Examiner has recited MPEP 2144.07. Thus, evidence of obviousness of the rejection of claim 19 outweighs evidence of distinction of the instant invention.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pgs. 12-13 regarding the combination of Harada with Hwang for the rejection of claim 20, the Applicant again argues that Harada does not teach the claimed non-overlap inward positioning, etc. 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). Further, Applicant references non-overlap geometry and “specific geometry imparting stress dispersion and stable rupture pressure” which is not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, Hwang anticipates claim 7, which includes the claimed support member. Hwang does not disclose the material of the support member. Harada’s teachings demonstrate that polypropylene is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery and the Examiner has recited MPEP 2144.07. Thus, evidence of obviousness of the rejection of claim 20 outweighs evidence of distinction of the instant invention.
While the Examiner maintains the anticipation and obviousness rejections as described above, the Examiner does recognize the instant invention is differentiated over the prior art; thus, allowable subject matter of claims 24-25 is provided above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights