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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/18/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-19 are amended, submitted on 11/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 209981340 U, see machine translation for citation), in view of Shu (US 20230026117 A1-priority to 12/18/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a top cover assembly (top cover [0031]) comprising: a top cover plate (top cover sheet 11, [0031]), wherein an explosion-proof hole (explosion-proof valve 10, [0031]) is formed in the top cover plate; and an explosion-proof sheet ([0004] and FIGs. 1-3), the explosion-proof sheet in the middle of the top cover sheet and the explosion-proof sheet is easy to rupture during breathing tests ([0004]), which inherently anticipates the claimed “the explosion-proof sheet is configured to be connected to the top cover plate to close the explosion-proof hole”, because if the explosion-proof sheet is not closing the explosion-proof hole, the explosion-proof sheet would not be easy to rupture during breathing tests.
Hu further discloses the explosion-proof sheet comprises: a connecting portion (explosion-proof valve ring 1, [0024]), wherein the connecting portion is configured to be connected to the top cover plate; a body portion (explosion-proof valve cover 2, [0024]), the body portion being connected to the connecting portion and being configured to be disposed in the explosion-proof hole to close the explosion-proof hole (FIG. 1), the body portion comprises a first surface (top surface, FIGs. 2 and 3) and a second surface (bottom surface, FIGs. 2and 3), wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite to each other along a thickness direction of the body portion; at least one reinforced portion (reinforcing ribs 31-36,[0024] and FIG. 1), provided on the first surface (FIG. 1); and a weak portion (notches 41 and 42 [0024] and FIG. 1), the weak portion being located between the body portion and the connecting portion (FIG. 1).
Hu discloses the concern that the bursting of an annular groove part of an explosion-proof valve causes the explosion-proof valve rushing out of the top cover, splashing out, and even damaging other components ([0004]). Hu further discloses along a thickness direction of the explosion-proof sheet a thickness of a respective reinforced portion of the at least one reinforced portion is h1, a thickness of the body portion is h2 (FIGs. 2-3), the thickness of other parts of the explosion-proof valve cover 2 is 0.3-0.7 mm, the thickness of the first/second reinforcing rib 31/32 is 0.13-0.25 mm, the thickness of reinforcing rib 33-36 is 0.3-1 mm, which is the same as the thickness of the explosion-proof valve cover 2 ([0028]); and at least one outer surface of the reinforced portion is an arc surface (31/32 in arc shape from top view, FIG. 1).
However, Hu does not explicitly disclose an overall thickness of the explosion-proof sheet at the respective reinforced portion is h1 + h2, and 1 <(h1 + h2)/h2<2.8. Further, Hu’ s cross-section view ([0017-0018] and FIGs. 2-3) does not explicitly show the respective reinforced portion has a width gradually increasing from a top portion of the respective reinforced portion toward the body portion.
Shu teaches a similar problem that a ruptured valve sheet may cause damage to other nearby components ([0003]); and provides a security apparatus with a first score-line 1 and a second score line 2 which are connected to form a closed path ([0036] and FIG. 6), and a first projection 210 and a second projection 220 having an ellipse shape convex top surface ([0056] and FIG. 7). The projections 210/220 of Shu correspond to the at least one reinforced portion in the claim. Since 210/220 are protrusions, it appears the overall thickness of the explosion-proof sheet at the respective reinforced portion h1 + h2 and a thickness of the reinforced portion h2 (Annotated FIG. 7) satisfy the claimed limitation “1<(h1+h2)/h2<2.8”. Further, the convex ellipse surfaces of 210/220 (FIG. 7) has a narrower top than the width of the body portion, possessing the feature as claimed “an inclined surface or an arc surface, such that the respective reinforced portion has a width gradually increasing from a top portion of the respective reinforced portion toward the body portion”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify some of the reinforcing ribs 31-36 of Hu with ellipse shape protrusion as 210/220 taught by Shu, thus arriving at the claimed “1 <(h1 + h2)/h2<2.8; and the respective reinforced portion has a width gradually increasing from a top portion of the respective reinforced portion toward the body portion”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in solving the problem of a ruptured valve sheet causing damage to other nearby components.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As set forth above, modified Hu has h1 of reinforcing rib of 31/32 being 0.13-0.25 mm, and h2 of the explosion-proof valve cover 2 being 0.3-0.7 mm, which means the h1+h2 would be between 0.43-0.95 mm; or h1 of reinforcing rib 33-36 being 0.3-1 mm, which means the h1+h2 would be between 0.6-1.7 mm, in both scenarios, falling within the range as claimed “0.3 mm < (h1 + h2) < 1.7 mm”.
PNG
media_image1.png
1116
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu does not expressly disclose a width of a side of the respective reinforced portion connected to the body portion is d, and d < 0.7 mm.
However, since the claim language is broad enough to encompass any size of the explosion-proof sheet adopted according to a variety of the battery sizes and levels of pressure relieve need, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect normally the smaller the battery with smaller explosion-proof need, the narrower and smaller reinforce portion required for relatively smaller pressure generated during battery function, therefore, would be successful to arrive at the claimed “a width of a side of the reinforced portion connected to the body portion is d, and d < 0.7 mm” under routine experimentation, because the explosion-proof sheet can be so small in size in some applications that there is no need for a reinforced portion of more than 0.7mm in width, in light of increase of weight and volume affecting negatively towards the overall energy density of the battery.
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu does not expressly disclose in the thickness direction of the explosion-proof sheet, a projection area of the body portion is S1, a projection area of the at least one reinforced portion is S2, and 5 <S1/S2< 10.
However, Shu further teaches the first projection 210 and the second projection 220 are provided with a balanced design choice regarding the improvement of a punching effect and a reduced possibility of deformation during the punching process with stabilized structure of the security apparatus (Shu: [0051]). Therefore, with at least one of the six reinforcing ribs presented by modified Hu (Hu: [0008] and FIG. 1), a skilled artisan would have found it obvious in order to optimize the balance between the improvement of a punching effect and a reduced possibility of deformation during the punching process with stabilized structure of the security apparatus, without undue experimentation, to arrive at the claimed ratio “5 <S1/S2< 10”, because a projection area of any one the first to sixth reinforced ribs of Hu shown in FIG. 1 is interpreted as S2 with a value that falls within the range of between one tenth or one half of the value of S1 corresponding to the projection area of the body portion.
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 11, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu further discloses the respective reinforced portion is a convex ridge ([0026]) extending along one or more arc-shaped trajectories (31/32 arc shape ([0026] FIG. 1) or along one or more straight line trajectories (33-36 ridge shape [0026], FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 13, 16, and 18, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu further discloses in the extending direction of the respective reinforced portion, the respective reinforced portion has two end portions, and at least one end portion of the respective reinforced portion extends to be connected to the weak portion (FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 14, 17, and 19, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu further discloses the weak portion comprises a first portion (straight portion 52 [0029]) and a second portion (arc shaped notches 41 and 42, FIG. 1) connected end to each other (52 connecting 41 and 42, FIG. 1). Modified Hu further discloses the notch is thinner than the straight portion 52 ([0029]), which anticipates the claimed “along the thickness direction of the explosion-proof sheet, a minimum thickness of the first portion is h3, a minimum thickness of the second portion is h4, and h2 > h3 > h4”.
Modified Hu further discloses at least one end portion of the respective reinforced portion extends to be connected to a connection of the first portion and the second portion, or at least one end portion of the respective reinforced portion extends to be connected to the first portion (ridges connected to the connection portion of 52 and 41/42, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Modified Hu does not explicitly disclose a battery comprising a housing and the housing is provided with an accommodating cavity having an opening, and the top cover assembly is connected to the housing to cover the opening of the accommodating cavity.
Shu teaches a security apparatus for a battery comprising a housing ([0076]) and a top cover ([0076]) and the security apparatus is welded to the top cover so as to assemble the security apparatus and the top cover ([0077]). Since Shu further teaches that the security apparatus is provided thereby forming a pressure relief structure that achieves the release of high-pressure air inside the lithium battery ([0003]), Shu inherently teaches the top cover assembly is connected to the housing to cover the opening of the accommodating cavity.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a battery comprising a housing and the housing is provided with an accommodating cavity having an opening, and the top cover assembly is connected to the housing to cover the opening of the accommodating cavity as taught by Shu in order to form a pressure relief structure that achieves the release of high-pressure air inside the lithium battery.
5. Claims 8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 209981340 U, see machine translation for citation), in view of Shu (US 20230026117 A1-priority to 12/18/2019) as applied to claim 1 or 3, respectively, further in view of Yang (US 20230114279 A1-priority to 3/26/2021).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 12, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu further discloses a reinforced portion of the at least one reinforced portion is a C-shaped convex ridge (31/32, FIG. 1); when the body portion is provided with a plurality of the C-shaped reinforced portions, at least two C-shaped reinforced portions are symmetrically arranged relative to a center of the body portion (31/32 are symmetrical pairs FIG. 1), and when at least two adjacent C-shaped reinforced portions are connected, the two adjacent C-shaped reinforced portions are connected at their middle to form a middle connecting portion (31/32 are connected in the middle portion, FIG. 1), and the middle connecting portion is located in the middle of the body portion and in the thickness direction of the explosion-proof sheet, a projection area of the body portion is S1, a projection area of the middle connecting portion is S3 (area of the merged portion of 31/32, FIG. 1).
While modified Hu discloses the concern of the annular groove part is prone to bursting causing the explosion-proof valve to rush out of the top cover, splash out, and even damage other components ([0004]), modified Hu does not expressly disclose 80 <S1/S3< 600.
Yang teaches a similar problem of a battery cell sometimes to bursts to relieve pressure in a case of no thermal runaway, thereby affecting the normal use of the battery ([0003]). Yang teaches the reinforcement portion 82 is a solid bulge disposed on the body portion 81 ([0124]) and an orthographic projection area of the two reinforcement portion 82 is S1, and an orthographic projection area of a region enclosed by the groove 80c is S2, where 0.2<S1/S2<0.3 to maintain the pressure relief mechanism with a balance between bursting prematurely and being not broken in time under a preset pressure value ([0148]).
A skilled artisan would reasonably acknowledge that a projection area of the middle connecting portion S3 of modified Hu as a portion of the reinforcement structure would affect the pressure relief mechanism in maintaining the balance of the explosion-proof sheet between bursting prematurely and being not broken in time under a preset pressure value. To the extent that Yang teaches an orthographic projection area of the two reinforcement portion needs to be optimized with an effective results towards maintaining a balance between bursting prematurely and being not broken in time under a preset pressure value, and especially in light of the broadness of the claim language encompassing all sorts of battery chemistry, size and the material choices of the reinforcement portion and the explosion-sheet, it is the Examiner’s position that a skilled artisan would adjust the S1/S3 value of modified Hu accordingly under routine optimization in order to achieve a balance between bursting prematurely and being not broken in time under a preset pressure value as taught by Yang, and with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of S1/S3 that falls within the range as claimed “80 <S1/S3< 600”, absent evidence to the contrary for secondary consideration.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hu further discloses the weak portion is a racetrack-shaped structure with two arc-shaped segments (FIG. 1) and the racetrack-shaped structure comprises one straight line segment (bolded straight line at the bottom, FIG. 1), the one straight line segment is formed as the first portion, and the arc-shaped segments are formed as the second portion respectively connected to both ends of the one straight line segments (FIG. 1).
While modified Hu further discloses the concern of the annular groove part is prone to bursting causing the explosion-proof valve to rush out of the top cover, splash out, and even damage other components ([0004]), modified Hu does not expressly disclose two straight line segments, and the two straight line segments are parallel to each other, and the two arc-shaped segments are respectively connected to both ends of the two straight line segments.
Yang teaches a similar problem of a battery cell sometimes to bursts to relieve pressure in a case of no thermal runaway, thereby affecting the normal use of the battery ([0003]). Yang teaches the reinforcement portion 82 is a solid bulge disposed on the body portion 81 ([0124]) enclosed by the groove 80c ([0148] and FIG. 7) and the groove 80c appears to be symmetric with two straight line segments, the two straight line segments are parallel to each other, and the two arc-shaped segments are respectively connected to both ends of the two straight line segments (FIG. 7).
Since Yang is attempting to solve a similar problem of Hu in that the annular groove part is prone to bursting, a skilled artisan would reasonably modify the racetrack-shaped weak portion of modified Hu with two straight line segments, the two straight line segments are parallel to each other, and the two arc-shaped segments are respectively connected to both ends of the two straight line segments, as taught by Yang in order to solve the problem of the annular groove part is prone to bursting prematurely in a case of no thermal runaway occurs.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/26/2025 with respect to the amended claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM -5:00PM ET. ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/6/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751