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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 7, 10 is/are amended. Claims 1-7 add 9-20 are pending, of which, claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 05/05/2026 has/have been maintained for the reasons presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amendments to claims 7 and 10 to correct typographical errors overcome the objections to these claims in the Office action filed 05/05/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered, but respectfully are not found persuasive for the reasons presented below.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goggin et al. (US20160146363A1).
Applicant argues that Goggin fails to teach or suggest the structure of claim 1, where “when an internal air pressure of the battery cell increases enough to deform one of the first and second parts, the first part deforms faster than the second part” (emphasis by Examiner). Applicant cites images of Goggin’s pressure relief mechanism after rupture (Goggin FIGs. 4N, 12L) which appear to show Goggin’s second part (“central portion”, 420, 1220 in these FIGs.) being significantly more deformed than the first part (“angled frustum portion, 430, 1230 in FIGs.) (Remarks pp. 7-8).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. Claim 1 recites a pressure relief mechanism constructed such that “when an internal air pressure…increases enough to deform one of the first and second parts, the first part deforms faster than the second part”. A broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim encompasses any deformation of the mechanism at any stage of the mechanism’s response to pressure when one of the first and second parts deforms. This encompasses any deformations of the mechanism prior to rupture, in addition to a deformation occurring during the rupture itself. The cited images (FIGs. 4N, 12L) are of the ruptured mechanism, and thus cannot be used on their own to determine a deformation behavior of the mechanism prior to rupture.
Goggin ¶[0090] is cited to show the deformation behavior of the pressure relief mechanism, disclosing:
“In operation, the angled frustum portion 230 may collapse in response to a predetermined pressure (i.e., the activation pressure), causing the disk 200 to reverse. When the disk 200 reverses, the system pressure imparts a shear and/or tensile force onto the line of weakness 235, leading the line of weakness 235 to tear.”
In other words, Goggin’s first part (230) undergoes a rapid deformation through collapsing and reversing prior to rupture in order to maximize the tensile forces on the line of weakness (235), and as Goggin is silent to remark on any comparable deformation of the second portion (220) during the collapse, Goggin’s disclosure strongly indicates that the first part (230) deforms faster than the second part (220) in this step. Whether Goggin’s second part (220) may deform faster than the first part (230) in subsequent rupture steps is unrelated to the deformation behavior during the collapsing step which is cited to read on claim 1.
Furthermore, the ruptured embodiments of Goggin FIGs. 4N, 12L are embodiments with a flattened first part (420, 1220). As cited in the rejection of record, Goggin also considers the utility of an inverted dome-shaped second part (920) having improved pressure resistance in the second part ([0110], FIGs. 9A, 9B), which would be understood to resist deformation (and thus deform even more slowly) than a flattened second part (e.g., 220 in FIGs. 2A-2C).
For both of these reasons, Applicant’s arguments citing Goggin FIGs. 4N, 12L to assert that Goggin’s pressure-relief mechanism lacks a first part which deforms faster than the second part as claimed in claim 1 have not been found persuasive.
Claim 1 recites:
“[a] weak portion is provided at the protruding end of the first part and a second part…the first part is provided with a thin-walled region such that, when an internal air pressure of the battery cell increases enough to deform one of the first and second parts, the first part deforms faster than the second part…”.
The rejection of record relies on Goggin’s teaching to form multiple lines of weakness (235) ([0083], FIGs. 2A-2C), where the line of weakness (235) depicted in FIGs. 2A-2C is recognized as the claimed weak portion (235) and additional lines of weakness formed on the first part (230) are recognized as the claimed thin-walled region.
While Applicant acknowledges Goggin’s disclosure of providing multiple lines of weakness, Applicant asserts that Goggin does not teach these lines as deforming/opening at different pressures. Applicant cites claim 1 of Goggin, reading a “line of weakness” which is expressly “configured to open when the rupture disk responds to a predetermined pressure”, and asserts that it would be counterproductive to provide two lines of weakness opening at different pressures because the line of weakness provided for opening at the lowest pressure will always open first and render the other line of weakness moot. At most, Goggin teaches having a plurality of lines of weakness provided for deforming/opening in the same way in response to pressure (Remarks p. 9). Thus, Goggin fails to teach the structure of claim 1 where “the first part is provided with a thin-walled region such that, when an internal air pressure of the battery cell increases enough to deform one of the first and second parts, the first part deforms faster than the second part and the connecting portion does not deform” (Remarks p. 10).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. Even assuming that “Goggin at most teaches having a plurality of lines of weakness provided for deforming/opening in the same way in response to pressure” (Remarks p. 9), this feature is sufficient to read on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the cited portion of claim 1 provided that any line of weakness is present as the “thin walled region”, and Goggin’s first part is capable of deforming faster than the second part (regardless of any effects or behavior of the thin walled region in response to pressure); Goggin’s first/second parts are capable of this deformation even without a thin walled region (Goggin [0090], see above discussion) and thus modified Goggin fully reads on claim 1.
Additionally, while not relied upon in the rejection of record, it is noted here that Goggin suggests varying a thickness of the pressure relief mechanism to vary the activation pressure ([0090]), where the lines of weakness (235) are noted as having a thinner cross-sectional area ([0082]); it follows that a skilled artisan seeking to vary the pressure needed to induce collapse and deformation of the first part (230, “frustum portion”) could also consider providing lines of weakness (235) as a thin-walled region in the first part (230) for this purpose.
Thus, modified Goggin discloses the entirety of claim 1 as presented; the rejection of 05/05/2026 is maintained as below.
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 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goggin et al. (US-20160146363-A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, Goggin discloses a pressure relief mechanism (200, rupture disc) ([0081], FIGs. 2A-2C) provided on a housing plate of a battery cell (“battery cell top cover”, [0131]), an embodiment (see FIGs. 2A-2C, [0081]) comprising:
a connecting portion (210, “flange portion”), wherein the connecting portion (210) is located at an outer peripheral region of the pressure relief mechanism (200) ([0081], FIGs. 2A-2C).
The connecting portion is bonded with an inlet of a pressurized system (e.g., an inlet on a battery housing plate) as demonstrated in another embodiment with connecting portion (410) and inlet (440) ([0099]; FIGs. 4F-4H); thus, the connecting portion (210) is configured to (i.e., capable to) connect directly to the housing plate as claimed.
Goggin further discloses a first part (230, “angled frustum portion”), wherein one end of the first part (230) is connected directly to the connecting portion (210) ([0081]) and the other end protrudes obliquely towards a source of pressure (i.e., the battery cell interior) (0084], FIG. 2B);
a weak portion (235), wherein the weak portion is provided at the protruding end of the first part (230) ([0081], FIGs. 2B, 2C);
and a second part (220, “central truncated portion”), wherein an outer edge region of the second part (220) is connected to the weak portion (235) ([0081], FIGs. 2B, 2C).
The embodiment of FIGs. 2A-2C comprises the second part (220, “central truncated portion”) having an outer edge region which extends parallel in a direction along the interior of the battery cell ([0081], FIG. 2A) and thus fails to extend obliquely (i.e., neither parallel or perpendicular) in a direction leaving the interior of the battery cell.
However, Goggin considers forming the second part (“central portion”) of the pressure relief mechanism into various possible shapes to enhance performance ([0096], FIGS. 8A-11B), such as an inverted dome-shaped second part (920) which improves resistance to pressure applied to the concave surface (922) ([0110], FIGs. 9A, 9B) which would be generated in the interior of the battery cell.
As such, in seeking to improve the pressure resistance of Goggin’s pressure relief mechanism, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute Goggin’s second part (220) in the referenced embodiment (see FIGs. 2A-2C) with an inverted dome-shaped second part (920) within Goggin’s disclosure. Such a substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because Goggin indicates the respective second parts (“central portions”) of different embodiments as substitutable equivalents for improving the pressure relief mechanism performance ([0096]) (MPEP 2144.06 II).
In providing modified Goggin’s second part with an inverse dome shape (920), a skilled artisan would further provide a second part (920) comprising an outer edge region (see annotations) extending obliquely in a direction leaving the interior of the battery cell (Annotated Goggin FIG. 9A, below), thus reading on limitations of claim 1, the second part (920) having a shape of protruding away (see dashed line) from the interior of the battery cell, reading on claim 3 (Annotated Goggin FIG. 9A), and in the second part comprising an outer edge region and a middle region (the uppermost point of the curve), the middle region is basically parallel to a portion of the housing plate on which the pressure relief mechanism is provided (see dotted line), reading on claim 4. A protruding height of the second part (920) in a direction leaving the interior of the battery cell (922) does not exceed a height of the connecting portion (see dotted line) (Annotated Goggin 9A), reading on claim 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
1875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Goggin FIG. 9A
Goggin further discloses that multiple lines of weakness (not shown in FIGs) may be suitably formed on the pressure relief mechanism in addition to the line of weakness (235) of FIGs. 2A-2C interpreted as the claimed weak portion (235) ([0083], FIGs. 2A-2C).
Preferably, if not provided between the first (230) and second part (220) as the weak portion (235) of FIGs. 2A-2C, Goggin’s lines of weakness are formed on the first part (“angled frustum portion”) because this area offers better protection than the connecting portion (“flange portion”) and second part (“central portion”) ([0097]), as shown in embodiment of FIGs. 4A-4B.
Thus, it would be obvious under Goggin’s disclosure to provide additional line(s) of weakness on the first part (230) in addition to the first line of weakness (i.e., weak portion 235; FIGs. 2A-2C).
Furthermore, each line of weakness is formed with a thin cross-sectional area ([0082]); therefore, these additional line(s) of weakness are broadly and reasonably interpreted as the thin-walled region provided in the first part and rendering obvious this limitation of claim 1. Furthermore, these thin-walled regions represent thicknesses of the first part less than a thickness of any portion of the second part, which does not comprise any thin-walled portions ([0082]; [0097], FIGs. 2A-2C), thus reading on claim 6.
During operation of modified Goggin’s pressure relief mechanism, an internal air pressure of the battery cell increases enough to collapse (i.e., severely deform) the first part (230) ([0090]). In comparison, the only deformation of the second part (“central portion”) is through being shaped into a domed shape through manufacture or use ([0096]). As such, the first part (230), undergoing severe deformation through collapse at the deformation pressure, necessarily deforms faster than the second part (“central portion”) as according to claim 1.
Additionally, the connecting portion (“flange”) remains welded to the inlet (440) and thus does not deform ([0099]; FIG. 4G).
When the air pressure inside modified Goggin’s battery cell is less than a first preset value (i.e., the activation pressure where pressure relief mechanism 200 reverses; [0090]), the weak portion is pressed by the first part (“angled frustum portion”) ([0098]; FIGs. 4D; 2C), thus reading in this limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Goggin discloses the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 1, wherein when the air pressure inside the battery cell is greater than or equal to the first preset value (“activation pressure”), the first part changes from a state of protruding toward the interior of the battery cell to a state of protruding away (“[pressure relief mechanism] 200 reverses”), and the weak portion is imparted with tensile force (i.e., is stretched by) the first part and/or the second part ([0090]) as claimed.
The connection portion, being in a welded connection, similarly would not deform ([0099]; FIG. 4G).
Regarding claim 7, modified Goggin discloses the pressure-relief mechanism according to claim 1, wherein when a temperature or an air pressure inside the battery cell is greater than or equal to a second preset value (“overpressure condition”), the weak portion (235) actuates (by tearing) so that the pressure inside the battery cell is relieved via the pressure relief mechanism ([0082]; FIGs. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 11, modified Goggin discloses the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 1. Goggin’s weak portion (235) is formed with a cross-sectional area having a thickness less than the surrounding first and second parts ([0082]; FIGs. 2A-2C); thus, at least a partial region of the weak portion has a thickness less than thicknesses of the first part and second part as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
1968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Goggin FIG. 2C
Regarding claim 12, modified Goggin discloses the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 12. A common English definition of a “groove” is a “long narrow channel or depression” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary); Goggin’s weak portion (235), ([0082]), which is shown depressed relative to the first part (230) and is long and narrow as having a structure of a line (“line of weakness 235”) (see Annotated Goggin FIG. 2C above; [0084]), is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as a groove as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, modified Goggin discloses a battery cell comprising the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 1 ([0131]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goggin (US-20160146363-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Marubayashi et al. (JP-2001256944-A; cited with machine translation, 05/29/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 10, modified Goggin discloses the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 1. In addition to the circular-shaped pressure relief mechanism (“rupture disk”) of Goggin FIG. 2A-2C, Goggin contemplates other shapes of pressure relief mechanism ([0128]; FIGs. 18-21), including embodiments comprising an annular (i.e., ring-shape) connecting portion comprising at least two straight portions on the sides and at least two arc-shaped portions on the corners (see FIGs. 18, 19), but fails to further specify a pressure relief mechanism comprising two straight portions and two arc-shaped portions connected to ends of the two straight portions respectively as claimed.
Marubayashi, directed to an analogous pressure relief mechanism comprising a second part 9 (“safety valve”) and a weak part 4 (“crush groove”) (Marubayashi [0026-0027], FIGs. 5, 6), teaches forming a pressure relief mechanism into an ellipse shape with a connecting portion (6) comprising two straight portions (see annotations) and two arc-shaped portions connected to ends of the two straight portions respectively ([0013]; see Annotated Marubayashi FIG. 5 below). Advantageously, this structure allows concentrating stress on the straight portion (“long side”), reducing variability in the activation pressure of the safety valve ([0013]).
PNG
media_image3.png
278
1018
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Marubayashi FIG. 5
As such, in seeking to reduce the activation pressure variability in modified Goggin’s pressure relief mechanism, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pressure relief mechanism with an ellipsoid shape where the connection portion comprises two straight portions and two arc-shaped portions connected to ends of the two straight portions respectively as taught by Marubayashi. Such a modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Goggin contemplates a suitability of using a variety of possible pressure relief mechanism shapes and would therefore be amenable to changing the shape of the pressure relief mechanism, which includes the annular connecting portion.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goggin (US-20160146363-A1) as applied to claim 13, further in view of Danae (What is the Modular Battery; copy provided with this Office action).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Goggin discloses the battery cell according to claim 13, but fails to further disclose the structure of a battery further comprising this battery cell as claimed in claim 14 or an electric apparatus comprising this battery as according to claim 15.
However, it is known in the art that one or more individual battery cells may be connected into a battery pack to provide additional control, cooling, or protection systems (Danae pp. 1 ¶3), a battery pack also being known as a battery (pp. 1 ¶1). Electric apparatuses such as electric vehicles require large batteries (“battery packs”) to fulfill the power requirement as a supply of electrical energy (pp. 2 ¶1).
As such, in seeking to provide control, cooling, or protection systems to modified Goggin’s battery cell according to Danae’s teaching, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to form a battery comprising the battery cell according to claim 13, thus reading on claim 14.
Additionally, in seeking to supply sufficient power to an electric apparatus (e.g., an electric vehicle) as according to Danae’s teaching, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an electric apparatus with the battery according to claim 14 wherein the battery is configured to supply electrical energy, thus reading on claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights