DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 1/21/2026.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2014/0349148) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2014/0349148) in view of Ko et al. (WO 2019/112160, citations from US 2020/0295319).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 8, Ikeda et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, a cylindrical battery (ref 1, Fig 1), having: an electrode assembly (ref 10) around which a positive electrode ([0047]) and a negative electrode ([0047]) are wound via a separator ([0047]); an electrolyte ([0054]); a bottomed cylindrical exterior can (ref 2) which houses (Fig 1) the electrode assembly (ref 10) and the electrolyte ([0054]); and a sealing assembly (ref 30) which blocks an opening (Fig 2) of the exterior can (ref 2), wherein the sealing assembly (ref 30) has a cap (ref 3) disposed at an outermost part (Fig 2) of the sealing assembly (ref 30), the cap (ref 3) includes a projection (refs 3b + 3c) formed at a center part (Fig 2), the projection (refs 3b + 3c) includes a top surface part (ref 3c) and a sidewall part (ref 3b), and a plurality of second exhaust ports (refs 3d2, 3d1) are formed (Fig 2) at the top sidewall part (ref 3b).
Ikeda et al. does not explicitly disclose a plurality of first exhaust ports formed at the top surface part separate from the second exhaust ports located radially outside the center part of the projection, the top surface part facing the electrode assembly includes a flat surface at a centermost part of the projection, with exhaust parts not formed at the centermost top surface part, and the center part of the projection is free of exhaust ports.
Ko et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a cylindrical battery (ref 100) including an upper cap (ref 140) that comprises a center projecting part (Fig 4A, middle at ref 140) and a plurality of separate, distinct gas discharge holes (refs 141) located radially (Fig 4A) around the center projecting part (Fig 4A), with the top surface part facing an electrode assembly (Fig 1) and being flat at a centermost part (Fig 4A) free of gas discharge holes (Fig 4A depicts this structure). This configuration enhances the performance of gas venting within the battery, enhancing battery safety and performance ([0015]-[0016]).
Ko et al. and Ikeda et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate radially located exhaust ports having the center projecting part configuration disclosed by Ko et al. into the center structure of Ikeda et al. to enhance the safety and performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ikeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the sealing assembly (ref 30) has an internal terminal plate (ref 35) which is disposed at an innermost part (Fig 2) of the sealing assembly (ref 30), to which a positive electrode lead (ref 33) is bonded ([0059]), and which forms a current path ([0059], Fig 2) from the positive electrode lead (ref 33) to the cap (ref 3), and a plurality of exhaust ports (openings in ref 35 depicted in Fig 2) are formed on the internal terminal plate (ref 35).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ikeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cap (ref 3) includes a flange part (ref 3a) formed around the projection (refs 3b, 3c), and a plurality of exhaust ports (refs 3d2) are formed at (Fig 2) the flange part (ref 3a).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Ikeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific diameter of the exhaust port or aperture ratio as set forth in the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the diameter of the exhaust port and total aperture ratio, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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). It is well known in the art that the larger / wider the exhaust ports the more gas / pressure is exhausted from the battery and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the size of the exhaust ports.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ikeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the terminal plate includes a recess at the center (Fig 2, depicts recess / hole in center of ref 35).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2014/0349148) in view of Yoshinaka et al. (US 6,596,434) in view of Ko et al. (WO 2019/112160, citations from US 2020/0295319) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2012/0040215).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ikeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a total aperture ratio of the exhaust ports at the top surface part is greater than a total aperture ratio of the exhaust ports at the sidewall part.
Zhu et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a cylindrical battery ([0002]) including a cover structure (ref 1) including a cap (Fig 4) having 4 exhaust vent holes distributed radially around a center point of a top surface (Fig 4). This configuration enhances gas exhaust venting, enhancing overall battery safety and explosion prevention ([0016]).
Zhu et al. and Ikeda et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the plurality of exhaust holes radially distributed around a center of the top surface part of Ikeda et al. as disclosed by Zhu et al. to enhance gas exhaust venting and overall battery safety. The envisaged combination of Zhu et al. with Ikeda et al. has the plurality (4) radial exhaust holes at the top surface, resulting in a structure having a total aperture ratio of the exhaust ports at the top surface part is greater than a total aperture ratio of the exhaust ports at the sidewall part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725