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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 12/05/2025. Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are currently amended. Claims 1-10 are pending review in this action. The previous objection regarding the claims is withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 9. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 03/23/2025 and 12/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cap-down" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would not be clear to the skilled artisan what is being referred to as “the cap-down”, as nowhere in Claim 1 (on which Claim 8 depends) is a “cap-down” recited. For purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation will be used when reviewing the prior art. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency upon Claim 8. Note that claim 9 introduces “a cap down” but depends on claim 8. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min et al. (US 2021/0336309 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 09/23/2025).
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 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 a contact surface (upper surface of safety vent, 110) 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). Thus, 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)
Regarding Claim 2, 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, Min further 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).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 3 recites that the support protrusion is formed by contacting the lower surface of the cap-up. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The structure resulting from the limitation requiring that “the support protrusion is formed by contacting the lower surface of the cap-up” is such that the support protrusion is in contact with a lower surface of the cap-up, and the support protrusion protrudes above a lower surface of the cap-up at the edge coupling portion. As detailed above, 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) and the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) protrudes above a lower surface of the cap-up (top cap, 101). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, 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_image2.png
542
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Min US 2021/0336309 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Min the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is in contact with a lower surface of the cap-up inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 above). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6, 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, 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, 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
Regarding Claim 9, 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, and 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, Min further discloses that the support protrusion (see annotated Figure 2 above) is fixed to the cap-up (top cap, 101) and supports the same 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 12/05/2025, 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).
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 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