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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 & 6-16 are pending in the application. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 & 16 are presently examined. Claims 1-4 were rejected in the 6/24/2026 office action. Applicant added new claim 16.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 9/15/2026 amendment, in response to the 6/24/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the applied art, whether taken singly or combined, do not disclose or render obvious an arrangement comprising a safety vent that includes a groove-shaped notch configured to be broken in response to an internal gas pressure inside the secondary battery to open the safety vent and to discharge internal gas to the outside; and a discharge hole having a block filled into the discharge hole to seal the discharge hole, as claimed.”
Examiner disagrees. The prior art cited in the prior office action, US20080138548A1 (Sciara) and US20200091482A1 (Min), do teach both the safety vent notch and the block filled discharge hole. These teachings, along with motivation for the combination, are described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 1 states “A secondary battery… the secondary batter”. Presumably, the “secondary batter” is a typographical error, and should be changed to “the secondary battery”.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200091482A1 (Min) in view of US20080138548A1 (Sciara).
Min teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A secondary battery (title) comprising:
an electrode assembly (paragraph 36; figure 2: electrode assembly 1);
a battery case (paragraph 36; figures 1-2: can member 100) in which the electrode assembly (1) is housed, the battery case (1) having an opened upper part (paragraph 36; figures 1-2: opening 101); and
a cap assembly (paragraph 36; figure 2: top cap assembly 110) coupled to the opened upper part (101) of the battery case (100),
wherein the cap assembly (110) comprises a safety vent (paragraph 36; figure 2: safety vent 120) that is a disk-shaped plate (figures 1-2) at an upper end (figures 1-2) of the battery case (100) and exposed to an outside (figures 1-2) of the secondary battery,
wherein the safety vent (120) includes: a groove-shaped notch (paragraph 42; figure 2: notch part 123) configured to be broken in response to an internal gas pressure inside the secondary batter to open the safety vent and to discharge internal gas to the outside of the secondary battery (paragraphs 42 & 56)…
wherein the cap assembly (110) comprises a current interrupt device (paragraphs 41 & 43; figure 2: current interruption member 160) below the safety vent (120),
wherein a central part (Figure A below) of the safety vent (120) and the current interrupt device (160) are connected to each other (paragraph 43; Figure A: connected by central portion 161)
Figure A: Annotated Min Figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
510
1266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Min fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Sciara:
wherein the safety vent includes a discharge hole (paragraphs 45-46; figure 6: opening 2),
wherein a block (paragraphs 45-46; figure 6: ball 1) is filled into the discharge hole (2)…
wherein the discharge hole is between the central part and an outer peripheral part of the safety vent (Figure B below)
Figure B: Annotated Sciara Figure 6
PNG
media_image2.png
609
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sciara is directed to sealing an opening 2 on a battery cover with a ball 1 after filling the battery with electrolyte (abstract; paragraphs 2-4 & 46). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Min’s top cap assembly 110 to have an opening between a central part and an outer peripheral part of the safety vent, as taught by Sciara, to allow filling the battery with electrolyte, then sealing it afterwards.
With regard to claim 2, modified Min teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sciara teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the block is joined to the discharge hole by ball welding (paragraph 46; figures 1-6)
The phrase “ball welding” in claim 2 is interpreted according to its definition in the present specification, page 12, lines 11-12.
With regard to claims 3-4, modified Min teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Min also teaches the following limitations of claims 3-4:
Claim 3
one end of the upper part of the battery case (100) is bent to wrap around an outer peripheral part of the safety vent (120) and form a crimping part (Figure C below)
Claim 4
the safety vent (120) comprises a curling part (Figure C) that is bent at the outer peripheral part (Figure C) of the safety vent (120), and wherein the crimping part (Figure C) wraps around the curling part (Figure C) to form a crimp coupling (Figure C)
Figure C: Annotated Min Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
536
1206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 16, modified Min teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Min also teaches the following limitations of claims 16:
wherein the central part of the safety vent and the current interrupt device are connected to each other in a normal operating state and are configured to separate to interrupt a flow of current in an abnormal operating state (paragraphs 41-43),
wherein the safety vent includes a bent part bent in an upward direction relative to the central part of the safety vent (Figure D)
Figure D: Annotated Min Figure 2
PNG
media_image4.png
378
1064
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 also states:
the discharge hole is between the central part of the safety vent and the bent part of the safety vent
Min and Sciara fail to teach this claim limitation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
There is a design need to select a location for the discharge hole. There are only two reasonable options for discharge hole location:
(A) between the central part and the bent part as claimed, or
(B) on the bent part.
With only two reasonable options for discharge hole location, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed location.
Furthermore, the present specification teaches that discharge hole location isn’t critical:
“Meanwhile, the position of the discharge hole 410H is not particularly limited, but it is preferable that there is no restriction on the gas discharge.” page 15, lines 24-25
Figure 5 illustrates the discharge hole on the bent part (Option B above). Figure 6 illustrates the discharge hole between the central part and the bent part (Option A above).
Lack of criticality of this claim limitation is further evidence that locating the discharge hole as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights