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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The amendments filed on 09/20/2026 and 09/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 6 and 19 are amended, Claims 7-9 and 12, 16 and 18 are canceled and Claims 6 and 19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 09/21/2026.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 20100316894 A1), hereinafter “Hermann” in view of Kaschmitter et al. (US 5609972 A), hereinafter "Kaschmitter". Hermann and Kaschmitter et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery pressure relief and safety.
In regard to Claims 6 and 19, Hermann et al. discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising a shell and a battery cover plate, a battery cell being packaged in the shell, one end of the shell being provided with an opening, the battery cover plate sealing the opening (Hermann, Figure 2). Hermann et al. also discloses an electrode terminal being provided on the battery cover plate, wherein an explosion-proof groove (scoring 1803) is also provided on the battery cover plate and the explosion-proof groove surrounds or is set partially around the electrode terminal (Hermann, [0008]). Further, Hermann discloses the explosion-proof groove is an indentation formed on a surface of the battery cover plate and is in the form of a closed annular structure, or a U-shaped or C-shaped structure, and the explosion-proof groove is configured, in the case of abnormal battery conditions, to cause the battery cover plate to burst or explode along the explosion-proof groove (Hermann, [0008, 0047, 0052]).
Hermann et al. discloses a tab is provided in the shell (internal tab), the electrode terminal is electrically connected to the battery cell through the tab, one end of the tab is connected to the battery cell, and the other end of the tab is connected to the electrode terminal and is configured to cause the tab to be pulled apart and disconnected when the tab is pulled by the electrode terminal after the battery cover plate bursts or explodes along the explosion-proof groove (Hermann, [0052]).
While Hermann discloses two cutouts provided on the external tab, and the cutouts are configured to cause the tab to be pulled apart and disconnected along the two cutouts when the tab is pulled (Hermann, [0046]), it is silent as to the cutouts on the internal tab. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of that configuration as evidenced by Kaschmitter which discloses a battery cell pressure control system is disclosed which includes a conductive frangible tab which tears in response to a defined pressure by utilizing cutouts.
The frangible tab is affixed at one position to a stationary member and at another position to a deflection member which deflects in response to increasing internal cell pressure. When the cell pressure increases to a dangerous level, the deflection member exerts sufficient pressure on the frangible tab to cause it to break. When the tab breaks, the cell goes to open circuit, thus reducing the danger of continued pressure build up (Kaschmitter, Abstract, Col 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide two cutouts provided on two opposite lateral sides of the tab, and the two cutouts are configured to cause the tab to be pulled apart and disconnected along the two cutouts when the tab is pulled by the electrode terminal as taught in Kaschmitter after the battery cover plate bursts or explodes along the explosion-proof groove as disclosed in Hermann as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefit taught in Kaschmitter and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Lastly, Hermann discloses the explosion proof groove is provided with variable depth scoring as determined by the skilled artisan (Hermann, [0047]) and the depth of the groove is result effective variable based on design incentives of the skilled artisan and a range of 30%-90%, or 50-85% of the thickness of the battery cover plate is an obvious range to try for the skilled artisan and is well within the realm of routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
