SECONDARY BATTERY

§102 §103

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/17/2026 has been entered. This office action is in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 04/24/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 8-10 are currently amended. Claims 1-10 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 8. The previous 35 U.S.C.102 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 2021/0336309 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 09/23/2025) further in view of Mitamura et al. (JPH 06215746 A) (citations herein made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action). Regarding Claim 1: Min discloses a secondary battery comprising: a can (can member, 3) having a space therein; an electrode assembly (1) accommodated in the space of the can (can member, 3); and a cap assembly (top cap assembly, 100) for sealing the electrode assembly (1) by blocking an opening of the can (can member, 3) (Figures 1 and 2, [0042]). Min further discloses that the cap assembly (top cap assembly, 100) comprises a cap-up (top cap, 101) and a safety vent (110) under the cap-up (top cap, 101), wherein the safety vent (110) comprises a support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 below) formed on an upper surface (upper surface of safety vent, 110) of the safety vent (110) and coupled to the cap-up (top cap, 101) (Figure 2, [0042]). Min further discloses that the cap-up (top cap, 101) comprises an edge coupling portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) coupled to the safety vent (110) at an edge region and the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 below) protrudes above a lower surface of the cap-up (top cap, 101) at the edge coupling portion (see annotated Figure 2 below). Min is deficient in disclosing that the support protrusion is contacting the cap-up. Mitamura discloses a secondary battery comprising: a can (battery case, 8) and a cap assembly (assembled sealing plate) for sealing the can (battery case, 8) (Figures 1 and 4, [0011, 0019, 0021]). Mitamura further discloses that the cap assembly (assembled sealing plate) comprises a cap-up (external terminal plate, 5) and a safety vent (metal safety valve, 1) under the cap-up (external terminal plate, 5), wherein the safety vent (metal safety valve, 1) comprises a support protrusion (annular bent portions, 1a) formed on an upper surface (upper surface of metal safety valve, 1) of the safety vent (metal safety valve, 1) and coupled to the cap-up (external terminal plate, 5) (Figure 1, [0019]). Mitamura further discloses that the support protrusion (annular bent portions, 1a) contacts the cap-up (external terminal plate, 5) at least at a side region (see annotated Figure 1 below) (Figure 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the support protrusions of Min to have the support protrusions be in contact with the cap-up, as such a configuration is known in the art as suitable for a cap assembly for a secondary battery, as taught by Mitamura. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met. PNG media_image1.png 565 773 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 2 (Min US 2021/0336309 A1) PNG media_image2.png 589 814 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 1 (Mitamura JPH 06215746 A) Regarding Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is formed inside the edge coupling portion (see annotated Figure 2 above). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met. Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in Claim 1, modified Min discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is in contact with the lower surface of the cap-up (top cap, 101) (Figure 2). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met. Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the cap-up (top cap, 101) further comprises a cap-up inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) protruding toward an inner upper end from an edge in contact with the safety vent (110) (Figure 2). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met. PNG media_image3.png 542 689 media_image3.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 2 (Min US 2021/0336309 A1) Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 4): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 4 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in Claim 1, modified Min discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is in contact with the lower surface of the cap-up (top cap, 101) (Figure 2). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) would necessarily be in contact with the cap-up inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 above), as the cap-up inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is integrally formed with the lower surface of the cap-up (top cap, 101) (Figure 2). The examiner notes that the instant claim does not require that the support protrusion is in direct contact with the cap-up inclined portion. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met. Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 5 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) protrudes from the safety vent (110) according to a shape of the cap-up inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 above). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met. Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the safety vent (110) includes a vent groove (rupture notch portion, 113) formed in an inner region of the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) (Figure 2, [0042]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met. Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the cap assembly (top cap assembly, 100) further comprises a cap-down (current interrupt device, 120) below the cap-up (top cap, 101) with the safety vent (110) therebetween (Figure 2). Min further discloses that the safety vent (11) is coupled to a cap-down (current interrupt device, 120) through a contact portion (interrupt portion, 121) formed at a center thereof (Figure 2, [0047, 0072]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met. Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 8 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the safety vent (110) is spaced from the cap-down (current interrupt device, 120) from the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) to the contact portion (interrupt portion, 121) (Figure 2). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met. Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Min as modified by Mitamura discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Min further discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is fixed to the cap-up (top cap, 101) and is configured to support the cap-up (top cap, 101) during an upward motion of the safety vent (110) (Figures 2 and 3, [0049, 0052]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Min et al. (US 2021/0336309 A1) and Mitamura et al. (JPH 06215746 A). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724