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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the
examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 6, 12 and 16 are amended, Claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-15 and 17 are canceled, Claims 18 and 19 are newly added and Claims 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out 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 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “such that the electrode terminal is separated from the battery cover plate” in lines 18-19. This limitation is not fully supported based on the specification which discloses “the battery cover plate can drive the electrode terminal to move together when the battery cover plate bursts or explodes” further clarification is required to keep the claim amendment consistent with the specification.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and claims 7-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 ultimately depend from claim 6 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
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 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211789228 U - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Liu" in view of Kaschmitter et al. (US 5609972 A), hereinafter "Kaschmitter" as evidenced by Gu et al. (CN 104716280 A – Machine Translation cited for reference), hereinafter “Gu”. Liu, Gu and Kaschmitter et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
In regard to Claims 6 and 8, Liu 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, an electrode terminal being provided on the battery cover plate (Liu, Abstract, [4-6]). Liu also discloses wherein an explosion-proof groove is also provided on the battery cover plate, and the explosion-proof groove surrounds or is set partially around the electrode terminal (Liu, [8], Figure 3) wherein 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 such that the electrode terminal is separated from the battery cover plate (Liu, [58, 69]).
Further, While Liu discloses a tab is provided in the shell, 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 (Liu, [84]), it is silent as to and two cutouts provided on two opposite lateral sides of the tab cause the tab to be pulled apart and disconnected along the two cutouts when the tab is pulled by the electrode terminal after the battery cover plate bursts or explodes along the explosion-proof groove.
This is a known technique to the skilled artisan as taught in 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 taught in Liu 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.
In regard to Claims 7 and 9, Liu in view of Kaschmitter et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6. The skilled artisan is well aware of a battery cell configuration wherein the number of the electrode terminal is two, namely a first electrode terminal and a second electrode terminal, and both the first electrode terminal and the second electrode terminal are set on the battery cover plate as evidenced by Gu et al. (Gu, Abstract, [0008]), and when a configuration with two electrode terminals on the same cover plate are provided, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan of Liu to provide a second explosion proof groove surrounding or partially surrounding both electrode terminals.
In regard to Claim 12, Liu in view of Kaschmitter et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6. Liu et al. also discloses wherein two opposite ends of the shell are each provided with an opening, and the number of the battery cover plate is two, namely a first battery cover plate and a second battery cover plate, the first battery cover plate seals the opening at one end of the shell, the second battery cover plate seals the opening at the other end of the shell, and the explosion-proof groove is set on the first battery cover plate and/or the second battery cover plate (Liu, [92]).
In regard to Claims 16-17 and 19, Liu in view of Kaschmitter et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6. Liu et al. also discloses the depth of the explosion-proof groove 1311a between 0.2mm to 1mm and although it is silent as to the thickness of the cover plate the depth of the groove is result effective variable based on design incentives of the skilled artisan and a range of 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 has 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. Applicants’ argument with respect to the amended claim 6 overcoming the double patenting rejection of record is found persuasive and the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of Claims 1, 6 and 12 are as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/266,277 (reference application 1) and over claims 1, 14, 15 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/266,278 (reference application 2) are withdrawn.
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 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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights