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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 31st, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 10 & 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP2008117534A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on September 6th, 2024) in view of Ronan (US20110083959) further in view of Waha (US20200280030) further in view of Miyazaki (US20090061273).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirata discloses a cap assembly for a secondary battery ([001], [0010]), the cap assembly is configured to be coupled to an open end of a battery can (Fig. 3 shows cap assembly coupled to open end of battery can, [0011]), the cap assembly comprising:
A top cap disposed on an uppermost portion of the cap assembly in protrusive form to form a positive electrode terminal (electrode cap-4, Fig. 3, [0011], electrode cap can be used form a positive electrode terminal, as they are connected to electrode, [0011]);
A safety vent disposed below the top cap to deform a shape thereof when an internal pressure of the battery can increases (safety valve-2/22 opens due to pressure, [007]);
A gasket configured to surround edges of the top cap and the safety vent (gasket-9, [0021]); and
A screen member interposed between the top cap and the safety vent and having an edge surrounded by the gasket (porous material-3/23 is acts as screen member, Fig. 3, [007]), the screen member at least partially configured in a mesh form (can be made of breathable metal, [007]).
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the screen member is configured in a plate shape and has an edge portion and a central portion, wherein the central portion is configured in a mesh form, and wherein an edge of the edge portion is surrounded by the gasket.
Ronan discloses a screen member for a cylindrical battery, that includes a screen that is molded into a gasket frame ([008]). Ronan further discloses wherein the screen member is formed of frame-90 and a screen-94, where the frame is surrounded the screen (Fig. 13, [0054]). Ronan discloses wherein the screen may be formed as part of a flow field member ([0055]). Ronan further discloses wherein the flow field member can be a screen pack, porous plate, or gas diffusion member ([0055]). Ronan further discloses wherein a gasket seal-98 lines the edge portion of the screen member (Fig. 13 shows gasket seal-98 lining frame-90, which acts as edge portion of screen member, [0056]). Ronan further discloses wherein the screen member can be formed of a mesh material ([0054]). Ronan teaches that this structure provides improved sealing characteristics ([008]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Ronan to have wherein the screen member is configured in a plate shape and has an edge portion and a central portion, wherein the central portion is configured in a mesh form, and wherein an edge of the edge portion is surrounded by the gasket. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved sealing characteristics.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the planar edge portion is made of an electrically conductive material and an edge of the planar edge portion is surrounded by the gasket.
Waha discloses a ventilation structure for a cylindrical battery (ventilation device-10, cylindrical battery, [0059]). Waha further discloses a breathable filter in the ventilation device (breathable filter-30, [0061]). Waha further discloses wherein the breathable filter is surrounded by a conductive material (battery casing interior-91 forms surrounding of breathable filter, ventilation device comprises at least on attachment portion with an internal thread, [0034], internal thread can be a metallic insert, where metal is electrically conductive, that is over molded with the housing of the ventilation device, [0034], nut-80 is internal thread, [0033]). Waha teaches that this structure provides improved sealing of the battery without damaging the battery casing ([008]).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hirata with the teachings of Waha to have wherein the planar edge portion is made of an electrically conductive material and an edge of the planar edge portion is surrounded by the gasket. This modification would yield the expected result of improved sealing without damaging the battery casing.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the screen member comprises a plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on at least one of an upper surface or a lower surface of the screen member.
Miyazaki discloses a fuel cell with a mesh screen vent member (mesh member-64, [0041]) Miyazaki further discloses wherein protrusions are placed on a top surface of the mesh member (protrusions-48, upper surface-36, [0042], Fig. 2). Miyazaki teaches that this structure provides improved durability of the electrochemical device ([0062]).
The examiner notes that although Hirata is directed to a secondary battery and Miyazaki discloses a fuel cell, both Hirata and Miyazaki are analogous art.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1380, 2023 USPQ2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1007, 2023 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023). If a reference is not analogous art to the claimed invention, it may not be used in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner notes that Hirata’s screen member and Miyazaki’s screen member are both directed to the same function of allowing improved gas exhaust functionality while balancing a structurally sound battery structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the benefits enjoyed by Miyazaki’s screen member can be applied to Hirata’s screen member. Thus the Miyazaki reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Hirata’s screen member.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Miyazaki to have wherein the screen member comprises a plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on at least one of an upper surface or a lower surface of the screen member. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Regarding Claim 3, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata further discloses wherein the screen member is formed in a dome shape such that at least a central portion thereof protrudes upward (Fig. 3 shows porous material-3 acting as screen member forms a dome shape with a central protrusion upward, [007]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata further discloses wherein the screen member includes a protrusion formed to protrude upward or downward (the screen member is a disk shape with a downward protrusion, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata further discloses wherein the battery is a secondary battery ([0010]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirate further discloses wherein the screen member is circular (porous material-3 which forms screen member is a disk shape, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata in view of Ronan discloses an edge portion of the screen member.
It is the examiner’s position that since the screen member of Hirata is interposed between the top cap and the safety vent, that the modified screen member would have the edge portion of the screen member interposed between the top cap and the safety vent.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hirata with the teachings of Ronan to have wherein the edge portion of the screen member interposed between the top cap and the safety vent.
Regarding Claim 14, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not disclose wherein the edge portion of the screen member is configured such that gas does not pass therethrough.
Ronan discloses wherein the frame of the screen member is formed of rigid material and sealed ([0056-0057]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Ronan to have wherein the edge portion of the screen member is configured such that gas does not pass therethrough.
Regarding Claim 15, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata further discloses wherein the planar edge portion is annular (gasket-9 that defines edge portion is annular, Fig. 3, [0021]).
Regarding Claim 19, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of pin-shaped protrusions comprises a first plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on the upper surface and a second plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on the lower surface.
Miyazaki discloses a fuel cell with a mesh screen vent member (mesh member-64, [0041]) Miyazaki further discloses wherein protrusions are placed on a top surface of the mesh member (protrusions-48, upper surface-36, [0042], Fig. 2). Miyazaki further discloses wherein the protrusions can be placed on a lower surface of the mesh member ([0038]). Miyazaki teaches that this structure provides improved durability of the electrochemical device ([0062]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Miyazaki to have wherein the plurality of pin-shaped protrusions comprises a first plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on the upper surface and a second plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on the lower surface. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Regarding Claim 20, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata discloses wherein the screen member comprises a hole, and wherein at least one of the pluralities of pin-shaped protrusions is adjacent to the hole (porous material-3 acts as a screen member, exhaust opening-7 acts as hole, Fig. 3).
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein at least one of the pluralities of pin-shaped protrusions is adjacent to the hole.
Miyazaki discloses a fuel cell with a mesh screen vent member (mesh member-64, [0041]) Miyazaki further discloses wherein protrusions are placed on a top surface of the mesh member (protrusions-48, upper surface-36, [0042], Fig. 2). Miyazaki teaches that this structure provides improved durability of the electrochemical device ([0062]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Miyazaki to have wherein at least one of the pluralities of pin-shaped protrusions is adjacent to the hole. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP2008117534A, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Ronan (US20110083959) further in view of Waha (US20200280030) further in view of Miyazaki (US20090061273) further in view of Kim (US20120282504) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on November 21st, 2022).
Regarding Claim 2, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not directly disclose a current interrupt member having an upper portion connected to a lower end of the safety vent and a lower portion connected to an electrode assembly and configured to interrupt electric connection between the electrode assembly and the top cap when the safety vent deforms.
Kim discloses a cap assembly with a safety vent (safety vent-43, [0010]) and an electrode assembly (electrode assembly-30, [008]). Kim further discloses a current interrupt member having an upper portion connected to a lower end of the safety vent and lower portion connected to an electrode assembly (current interrupt filter-133 acts as current interrupt member, [0055]) and configured to interrupt electric connection between the electrode assembly and the top cap when the safety vent deforms ([0055]). Kim teaches that this structure prevents short-circuiting ([0057]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hirata with the teachings of Kim to have wherein a current interrupt member having an upper portion connected to a lower end of the safety vent and a lower portion connected to an electrode assembly and configured to interrupt electric connection between the electrode assembly and the top cap when the safety vent deforms. This modified structure would yield the expected results of preventing short-circuiting.
Claim(s) 5-9 & 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP2008117534A, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Ronan (US20110083959) further in view of Miyazaki (US20090061273) further in view of Waha (US20200280030) further in view of Kim (US20150147605).
Regarding Claim 5 & 6, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Miyazaki further in view of Waha discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of unit screens are stacked on each other in a vertical direction, and wherein the plurality of unit screens are configured to have different mesh forms from each other.
Kim discloses a safety member that is disposed on a cap assembly for a battery ([0011]). Kim further discloses wherein the safety member can be a foam or mesh shape ([0014]). Kim further discloses wherein the safety member may be between the electrode assembly and the cap plate inside the case ([0018]). Kim further discloses wherein the safety member can be porous ([0022]). Kim further discloses wherein the safety member can be formed of multiple metallic members (mesh can be formed of a combination of metal elements, [0013]). Kim further discloses wherein the mesh holes can have varying sizes ([0044]). Kim teaches this structure provides improved fire safety ([009]).
The examiner notes that the mesh structure of Kim, because it is formed in a 3D dimension shape with a height component, that it meets the limitation of a mesh being formed of a plurality of unit screens stacked on each other in a vertical direction. Furthermore, the examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, in view of the specifications, “different mesh forms from each other” can be interpreted to mean that the positions, shapes, numbers or the like of the holes forming the meshes are different. Therefore, since the metal materials can be varied and used in combination, the porous nature of the mesh is adjustable, and due to natural variations in manufacturing, Kim discloses the limitations of “different mesh forms from each other”.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the plurality of unit screens are stacked on each other in a vertical direction, and wherein the plurality of unit screens are configured to have different mesh forms from each other. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved fire safety.
Regarding Claim 7, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata in view of Kim discloses the use of mesh screens.
Hirata discloses wherein the upper portion of the porous material asking as the screen member is formed in shape where the top portion is in a dome shape that is convex upward, and the bottom portion is formed in a shape where the bottom portion is convex downward (Fig. 3, porous material-3).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Kim to have wherein an upper screen among the plurality of unit screens is formed in a dome shape such that at least a central portion is convex upward, and lower screen among the plurality of unit screens is formed in a dome shape such that at least a central portion is convex downward. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved fire safety.
Regarding Claim 8, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the lower screen is configured such that a convex shape thereof is reverse from a downwards direction to an upward direction of the deformation of the safety vent.
Hirata discloses wherein the safety valve-2 can have an elastic body-27 that during excess internal pressure pushes the safety valve up into the lower portion of the porous material (Fig. 4, [0017]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the modified Hirata to have wherein the lower screen is configured such that a convex shape thereof is reverse from a downwards direction to an upward direction of the deformation of the safety vent.
Regarding Claim 9, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the lower screen is configured such that at least some of hole formed there are located at different position from holes formed in the upper screen in a horizontal direction when the convex shape is reversed.
Hirata further discloses wherein the porous material can be an air-permeable metal with countless minute voids ([0023]).
Kim further discloses wherein the safety member can be formed of multiple metallic members (mesh can be formed of a combination of metal elements, [0013]). Kim further discloses wherein the mesh holes can have varying sizes ([0044]). Kim teaches this structure provides improved fire safety ([009]).
Therefore, since variations in hole positions in a porous material can be expected in regular manufacturing of a porous structure, and because Hirata and Kim teach the adjustment of pore size of the porous mesh, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using modified Hirata to have wherein the lower screen is configured such that at least some of hole formed there are located at different position from holes formed in the upper screen in a horizontal direction when the convex shape is reversed.
Regarding Claim 16 & 17, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki further in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of unit screens comprises an upper screen and a lower screen and wherein the upper screen comprises the plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on a lower surface of the upper screen. Hirata further does not disclose wherein the lower screen comprises the plurality of pin-shaped protrusion on an upper surface of the lower screen.
Miyazaki discloses a fuel cell with a mesh screen vent member (mesh member-64, [0041]) Miyazaki further discloses wherein protrusions are placed on a top surface of the mesh member (protrusions-48, upper surface-36, [0042], Fig. 2). Miyazaki teaches that this structure provides improved durability of the electrochemical device ([0062]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata with the teachings of Miyazaki to have wherein the plurality of unit screens comprises an upper screen and a lower screen and wherein the upper screen comprises the plurality of pin-shaped protrusions on a lower surface of the upper screen. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Regarding Claim 18, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki further in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hirata discloses wherein the plurality of unit screen comprises an upper screen and a lower screen. Hirata does not directly disclose wherein the lower screen comprises the plurality of pin-shaped protrusion on an upper surface of the lower screen.
The examiner notes that claim 18 is dependent on Claim 5 which is dependent on Claim 1. Claim 1 claims “wherein a screen member comprises a plurality of pin-shaped protrusion on at least one fo an upper surface or a lower surface of the screen member”. The examiner notes that claim 1 recites an optional limitation for either “upper surface or a lower surface”. Therefore, since the “uppers surface” Claim 1 limitation is disclosed by modified Hirata, Claim 18’s “lower surface” limitation is optional.
Therefore the prior art discloses Claim 18 limitations.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP2008117534A, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Ronan (US20110083959) further in view of Waha (US20200280030) further in view of Miyazaki (US20090061273) further in view Chang (US20070154789) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on November 21st, 2022).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Hirata does not disclose the secondary battery being part of a battery pack.
Chang teaches that lithium ion secondary batteries are commonly used in battery packs ([005]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Hirata to have wherein a battery pack that comprises as least one secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Claims, filed July 31st, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependents under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hirata in view of Ronan further in view of Waha further in view of Miyazaki under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights