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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 11-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quin, et. al. (see attached EPO machine translation of WO 2019174087 A1), in view of Li, et. al. (see attached EPO machine translation of CN111916615A), and Wang, et. al. (US2022158266A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Quin teaches a battery cell with directional pressure relief (explosion-proof valve 12), comprising: a housing (housing 20); and a cover plate (cover assembly 20), wherein the cover plate is buckled on the housing (“[p.4] the cover assembly is closed to the opening, and the cover assembly and the outer casing 20 form the battery case 100 of the battery module”), the cover plate is provided with an explosion-proof valve (second explosion proof valve 12). Quin at [p.3, 4], Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Quin at Fig. 1.
Li teaches an explosion-proof valve (“explosion-proof valve structure”) which comprises an arc notch (“[p.3] explosion proof notch 21 is a circular notch,” reading upon an “arc”) and a connecting portion (“[p.3] here the safety bit 25 refers to an interval of one end reserved on the explosion-proof notch 21, and the interval is set in the explosion-proof notch 21. There is no explosion-proof notch 21 on the reserved part of the ring line at the position”), the arc notch and the connecting portion are connected end-to-end to enclose and define a circular structure (see above, see also Li at Fig. 1), the circular structure separates the cover plate into a circular part and an annular part (“[p.3] Compared with traditional reinforcing ribs, the first reinforcing rib 22, the second reinforcing rib 23, and the third reinforcing rib 24 are a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and there is no intersection between the three, the force is uniform, and there is no stress concentration. Point, when the annealing process eliminates the residual stress, the first stiffener 22, the second stiffener 23, and the third stiffener 24 form multiple stress relieving layers, so that the residual stress can be released multiple times and avoiding bulging/wrinkling” ; where the circular part is the internal portion A, and the third reinforcing rib 23, and the annular part is the surrounding circular portion bounded by the explosion proof notch 21) and the circular part and the annular part are both connected to the connecting portion (see above), when the explosion-proof valve is opened, the arc notch is fractured and the circular part is turned around the connecting portion (“[p.3] the rupture disk 2 ruptures along the explosion-proof notch 21 and tilts relative to the top cover plate,” wherein “tilts relative to the top cover plate,” reads upon “turned around.”) Li at p.1, 3, Fig. 1. This tilting action provides a benefit such that “wherein the disc 1 is always connected at the connection part of the safety position 25, and the explosion-proof disc 2 and the top cover sheet 1 will not be directly separated and punched, thereby ensuring the safety performance of the explosion-proof disc 2 when it bursts.”
PNG
media_image2.png
330
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li at Fig. 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery cell of Quin, such that it comprises the explosion-proof valve of Li, because Li teaches a benefit to preventing separation of the disc 2 from the cover and improving safety (i.e., preventing a potentially dangerous high velocity object being released during rupture).
However, modified Quin is silent as to “a side of the annular part away from the housing is convexly provided with an annular protruding rib, and the annular protruding rib is coaxial with the cover plate.”
Wang teaches a lithium ion battery having a housing 1, an inner cylinder 101 and an outer cylinder 102, connected by a metal connecting rib 4; Wang describes the cover assembly as “[0040] an upper end of the outer battery cell 202 is connected with an outer battery cell electrode cap 502 arranged on an upper surface of the first battery protection assembly 602 through an outer battery cell upper pole piece 702 to conduct, and the outer battery cell electrode cap 502 is ring-shaped.” Wang teaches this nested structure provides a benefit in that “[0059] In the nested battery related to the present invention, since the battery is divided into two battery cells, and there is the gap 3 between the two parts, after the battery is subjected to an external mechanical acting force, there is a crumple space inside the battery, which may offset the external mechanical damage through deformation, and protect the safety of the overall battery pack.”
PNG
media_image3.png
807
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Wang, showing the reinforcing rib 4 and the protruding outer battery cell electrode cap 502, protruding and separating the two cylinders.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery of Quin, such that a side of the annular part away from the housing is convexly provided with an annular protruding rib, and the annular protruding rib is coaxial with the cover plate, because Wang teaches a benefit to safety.
Claim 1 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This reads upon “wherein a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly (convexly interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as curved outward, such as a rib upon a cover plate as in Fig. 1 of Li) provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial (i.e., sharing an axis, including a groove within the same plane) with the cover plate.” Here, a step groove under the broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as including a groove that forms a step relative to another raised portion.
Claim 2 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Thereby, Li teaches a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step grooves, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
Claim 3 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
Li teaches the plurality of arc grooves are evenly arranged along the circumferential (because a concentric circular or surrounding elliptical groove is in the circumferential direction of another groove) direction of the step groove. Li at p.3, Fig. 1.
Claim 4 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Li at p.3.
However, Li does not teach an included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30° to 60°.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such that the included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30° to 60°, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs, and thereby the angle between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing ribs, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 5 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Li at p.3.
However, Li does not teach a width of the reinforcing rib ranges from 3mm to 5mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such that a width of the reinforcing rib ranges from 3mm to 5mm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs, and thereby the width of the reinforcing ribs, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 6 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim7 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Because “positioning rib” is not given special definition, a positioning rib may be one of the ribs of the plurality, or an additional rib as recited previously. Here “opposite the connecting portion” indicates this rib is located on the exterior of the explosion proof notch 21, at the position of the first reinforcing rib 22 or further apart (i.e. in the case of an additional rib).
Thereby, Li teaches an arc groove of the plurality of arc grooves disposed opposite the connecting portion is provided with a positioning rib.
Further, Wang at Fig. 1 depicts the metal connecting rib 4 extends along a radial direction of the circular portion.
Claim 7 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Li at p.3.
However, Li does not teach a length of the connecting portion is less than a length of the arc notch, and the length of the connecting portion ranges from 5mm to 10mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such a length of the connecting portion is less than a length of the arc notch, and the length of the connecting portion ranges from 5mm to 10mm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs and the explosion proof score 21, and thereby the width of the connecting portion, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 9 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This reads upon “wherein a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial with the cover plate.” Here, a step groove under the broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as including a groove that forms a step relative to another raised portion.
Thereby, Li teaches “a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial with the cover plate.” Li at p.3, Fig. 1.
Claim 11 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This plurality includes at least three annular structures, and the ribs form a circular structure around the explosion-proof disk 2. This reads upon “a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.” Li further teaches “wherein a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial with the cover plate,” because a step groove under the broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as including a groove that forms a step relative to another raised portion.
Claim 12 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This plurality includes at least three annular structures, and the ribs form a circular structure around the explosion-proof disk 2. This reads upon “a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.”
Li further teaches the plurality of arc grooves are evenly arranged along the circumferential (because a concentric circular or surrounding elliptical groove is in the circumferential direction of another groove) direction of the step groove. Li at p.3, Fig. 1. In addition, “away from the housing” is taken to mean spaced apart from the housing in a direction, i.e. a raised portion; because these are “annular closed structures,” they are away from the housing.
Li teaches a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves; the plurality of arc grooves are evenly arranged along the circumferential direction of the step groove. Li at p.3, Fig. 1.
Claim 13 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id. This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id
Li teaches a side of the circular part (one of the first, second, third, or Nth stiffeners, which are all circular closed curves) facing the housing is convexly provided (shaped curving outwards, such as with a rib) with a plurality of arc grooves (the spaces between each rib), the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove (in that concentric closed curves are along a circumferential direction), and a reinforcing rib (one of the Nth ribs of the plurality) is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
However, Quin and Li are silent as to an included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30 to 60°.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such that an included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30 to 60°, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs, and thereby the angle between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing ribs, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 14 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id. This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id
Li teaches a side of the circular part (one of the first, second, third, or Nth stiffeners, which are all circular closed curves) facing the housing is convexly provided (shaped curving outwards, such as with a rib) with a plurality of arc grooves (the spaces between each rib), the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove (in that concentric closed curves are along a circumferential direction), and a reinforcing rib (one of the Nth ribs of the plurality) is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
However, Quin and Li are silent as to a width of the reinforcing rib ranges from 3mm to 5mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such that a width of the reinforcing rib ranges from 3mm to 5mm°, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs, and thereby the width of the reinforcing rib, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 15 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id. This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id
Li teaches a side of the circular part (one of the first, second, third, or Nth stiffeners, which are all circular closed curves) facing the housing is convexly provided (shaped curving outwards, such as with a rib) with a plurality of arc grooves (the spaces between each rib), the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step groove (in that concentric closed curves are along a circumferential direction), and a reinforcing rib (one of the Nth ribs of the plurality) is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Because “positioning rib” is not given special definition, a positioning rib may be one of the ribs of the plurality, or an additional rib as recited previously. Here “opposite the connecting portion” indicates this rib is located on the exterior of the explosion proof notch 21, at the position of the first reinforcing rib 22 or further apart (i.e. in the case of an additional rib).
Thereby, Li teaches an arc groove of the plurality of arc grooves disposed opposite the connecting portion is provided with a positioning rib.
Claim 16 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Quin.
Wang at Fig. 1 teaches a metal connecting rib 4, which reads upon the reinforcing rib extends along a radial direction of the circular part. To the extent that the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder of Wang are shown as grooves, these do not overlap with each other in the radial direction of the circular part.
Li also teaches plurality of arc grooves are not overlapped which each other along the radial direction of the circular part. Li at Fig. 1.
Claim 21 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang.
Claims 10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang, et. al. (see attached EPO machine translation of KR20220062608A).
Regarding Claim 10, Quin teaches a battery module with directional pressure relief (explosion-proof valve 12), comprising: a housing (housing 20); and a cover plate (cover assembly 20), wherein the cover plate is buckled on the housing (“[p.4] the cover assembly is closed to the opening, and the cover assembly and the outer casing 20 form the battery case 100 of the battery module”), the cover plate is provided with an explosion-proof valve (second explosion proof valve 12). Quin at [p.3, 4], Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Quin at Fig. 1.
Li teaches an explosion-proof valve (“explosion-proof valve structure”) which comprises an arc notch (“[p.3] explosion proof notch 21 is a circular notch,” reading upon an “arc”) and a connecting portion (“[p.3] here the safety bit 25 refers to an interval of one end reserved on the explosion-proof notch 21, and the interval is set in the explosion-proof notch 21. There is no explosion-proof notch 21 on the reserved part of the ring line at the position”), the arc notch and the connecting portion are connected end-to-end to enclose and define a circular structure (see above, see also Li at Fig. 1), the circular structure separates the cover plate into a circular part and an annular part (“[p.3] Compared with traditional reinforcing ribs, the first reinforcing rib 22, the second reinforcing rib 23, and the third reinforcing rib 24 are a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and there is no intersection between the three, the force is uniform, and there is no stress concentration. Point, when the annealing process eliminates the residual stress, the first stiffener 22, the second stiffener 23, and the third stiffener 24 form multiple stress relieving layers, so that the residual stress can be released multiple times and avoiding bulging/wrinkling” ; where the circular part is the internal portion A, and the third reinforcing rib 23, and the annular part is the surrounding circular portion bounded by the explosion proof notch 21) and the circular part and the annular part are both connected to the connecting portion (see above), when the explosion-proof valve is opened, the arc notch is fractured and the circular part is turned around the connecting portion (“[p.3] the rupture disk 2 ruptures along the explosion-proof notch 21 and tilts relative to the top cover plate,” wherein “tilts relative to the top cover plate,” reads upon “turned around.”) Li at p.1, 3, Fig. 1. This tilting action provides a benefit such that “wherein the disc 1 is always connected at the connection part of the safety position 25, and the explosion-proof disc 2 and the top cover sheet 1 will not be directly separated and punched, thereby ensuring the safety performance of the explosion-proof disc 2 when it bursts.”
PNG
media_image2.png
330
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li at Fig. 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery cell of Quin, such that it comprises the explosion-proof valve of Li, because Li teaches a benefit to preventing separation of the disc 2 from the cover and improving safety (i.e., preventing a potentially dangerous high velocity object being released during rupture).
However, modified Quin is silent as to “a side of the annular part away from the housing is convexly provided with an annular protruding rib, and the annular protruding rib is coaxial with the cover plate.”
Wang teaches a lithium ion battery having a housing 1, an inner cylinder 101 and an outer cylinder 102, connected by a metal connecting rib 4; Wang describes the cover assembly as “[0040] an upper end of the outer battery cell 202 is connected with an outer battery cell electrode cap 502 arranged on an upper surface of the first battery protection assembly 602 through an outer battery cell upper pole piece 702 to conduct, and the outer battery cell electrode cap 502 is ring-shaped.” Wang teaches this nested structure provides a benefit in that “[0059] In the nested battery related to the present invention, since the battery is divided into two battery cells, and there is the gap 3 between the two parts, after the battery is subjected to an external mechanical acting force, there is a crumple space inside the battery, which may offset the external mechanical damage through deformation, and protect the safety of the overall battery pack.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery of Quin, such that a side of the annular part away from the housing is convexly provided with an annular protruding rib, and the annular protruding rib is coaxial with the cover plate, because Wang teaches a benefit to safety.
However, modified Quin is silent as to a battery module, comprising a battery cell with directional pressure relief, wherein a plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are provided, and connecting portions of the plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are disposed on a same side of the plurality of battery cells, so that explosion-proof valves of the plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are opened in a same direction, because neither reference teaches the cells of the module all individually have their own explosion-proof valve.
Yang teaches a battery module intended to prevent “thermal runaway,” or “explosion,” wherein “[0016] [The battery module includes a plurality of batteries, and an explosion-proof valve is disposed in each battery.” Yang at [0003-4, 16-17]. Yang at least suggests that this, along with the fire resistant member 1, mitigates the diffusion rate by preventing heat transfer and explosion under pressure buildup conditions. Id; see also Yang at [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery module of modified Yin, such that it comprises “wherein a plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are provided, and connecting portions of the plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are disposed on a same side of the plurality of battery cells, so that explosion-proof valves of the plurality of battery cells with directional pressure relief are opened in a same direction,” because Yang teaches or at least suggests a benefit to mitigating thermal runaway. Further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and maintaining the same orientation across cells (i.e., the orientation of the valve when opening) would produce expected results (i.e., each valve “tilting” open such that the risk of collision of the valves is minimized). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claim 10 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This reads upon “wherein a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial with the cover plate.” Here, a step groove under the broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as including a groove that forms a step relative to another raised portion.
Claim 17 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 17. Claim 17 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Thereby, Li teaches a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step grooves, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
Claim 18 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Id. This reads upon “wherein a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly (convexly interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as curved outward, such as a rib upon a cover plate as in Fig. 1 of Li) provided with a step groove, the step groove is circular, and the step groove is coaxial (i.e., sharing an axis, including a groove within the same plane) with the cover plate.” Here, a step groove under the broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as including a groove that forms a step relative to another raised portion. Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id. For this reason, Li teaches the plurality of arc grooves are evenly arranged along the circumferential (because a concentric circular or surrounding elliptical groove is in the circumferential direction of another groove) direction of the step groove. Li at p.3, Fig. 1.
Claim 19 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Quin.
Li teaches three reinforcing ribs 22, 23, and 24, having a circular closed structure arranged in sequence, and further discloses “[p.3] In this embodiment, the stiffeners also include the fourth stiffener, the fifth stiffener...the Nth stiffener, which are all circular closed curves, where N is any natural number greater than 2, which can be adjusted according to actual production requirements The number of reinforcing ribs on the rupture disk 2 is adapted to the force buffer requirements of the rupture disks 2 of different sizes.” Li further discloses the shape of the explosion-proof disk “may be of any square, rectangular, circular, polygonal, and elliptical, and the explosion-proof score 21 and the ribs correspond to the outer shape of the explosion-proof disk 2.” Id.
This plurality of “annular closed structure[s]” of Fig. 1 present spaces between them which are lowered relative to the annular parts of the ribs; these are “grooves” bounded by the ribs. Thereby, Li teaches a side of the circular part facing the housing is convexly provided with a plurality of arc grooves, the plurality of arc grooves are arranged along a circumferential direction of the step grooves, and a reinforcing rib is disposed between adjacent arc grooves of the plurality of arc grooves.
However, Li does not teach an included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30° to 60°.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery cell of modified Quin, such that the included angle is defined between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing rib, and the included angle ranges from 30° to 60°, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Li teaches the shape of the reinforcing ribs, and thereby the angle between a bottom wall and a side wall of the reinforcing ribs, varies based upon the size and shape of the explosion-proof disk 2, indicating there would be no change in performance. Li at p.3.
Claim 20 is obvious over Quin, in view of Li and Wang, further in view of Yang
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The claim amendment moved the limitations from claim 8 into claim 1 – notably - “a side of the annular part away from the housing is convexly provided with an annular protruding rib, and the annular protruding rib is coaxial with the cover plate”. Similarly, the same limitation was removed from part of claim 11 and added into claim 1. The non-final rejected claims 1, 8 (and also 11) via Quin in view of Li. However, the final rejection now states that Quin in view of Li does not teach the amended limitations, which are the exact limitations from claim 8 (and also 11). To address the amended limitation, the examiner introduces an additional new Wang reference. Finality does not seem proper since the exact same limitation was addressed in the NF with only Quin and Li, whereas the final states that Quin and Li do not teach the limitation.
Conclusion
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 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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights