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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 & 6-15 are pending in the application. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 are presently examined. Claims 1-5 were rejected in the 3/5/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claim 5 and incorporated claim 5 limitations into claim 1.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 5/26/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/5/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections. Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Sciara does not disclose any structure corresponding to the current interrupt device of the claimed arrangement, nor does it disclose the positional relationship of the injection port relative to such a structure. In this respect, Sciara differs from the claimed arrangement.”
Examiner agrees that US20080138548A1 (Sciara) fails to disclose the current interrupt device; however, US20200091482A1 (Min) does disclose the current interrupt device (paragraph 41; figure 2: current interruption member 160).
Regarding a relative position of the injection port and the current interrupt device, claim 1 states that the current interrupt device is below the safety vent. This doesn’t affect the location of Sciara’s opening 2 [claimed discharge hole]. Claim 1 also states that “the discharge hole is between the central part and an outer peripheral part of the safety vent”. Sciara teaches that the opening 2 [claimed discharge hole] is between the central part and the outer peripheral part of the safety vent, as illustrated in Figure A below:
Figure A: Annotated Sciara Figure 6
PNG
media_image1.png
609
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that “the notch (123) of Min et al. cannot reasonably be regarded as corresponding to the discharge hole of the claimed arrangement”. Examiner agrees; however, Sciara teaches the opening 2 [claimed discharge hole], so there is no need for Min to also teach this. Regarding claim 1, Min is only presented for teaching the current interrupt device. Other structures mentioned in the annotated figure of Min were only to place Min’s structures in context of the claimed structures.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that inserting Sciara’s ball 1 into Min’s notch part 123 would alter the function of Min’s safety vent 120. Sciara can be modified by Min without applying that aspect of Sciara to Min. As noted above, Min is only presented for teaching the current interrupt device.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080138548A1 (Sciara) in view of US20200091482A1 (Min).
Sciara teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A secondary battery (paragraph 45; figure 6: accumulator 8) comprising:
an electrode assembly (paragraphs 45-46; figure 6: electrochemical bundle 9);
a battery case (paragraphs 45-46; figure 6: container 10) in which the electrode assembly (9) is housed, the battery case (10) having an opened upper part (paragraphs 45-46: open end; figure 6: upper end of container 10); and
a cap assembly (paragraphs 45-46; figure 6: cover 11) coupled to the opened upper part of the battery case (10),
wherein the cap assembly (11) comprises a safety vent exposed to an outside (Figure A below),
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 A below)
Figure A: Annotated Sciara Figure 6
PNG
media_image2.png
609
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sciara fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Min:
wherein the cap assembly (paragraph 41; figure 2: top cap assembly 110) comprises a current interrupt device (paragraph 41; figure 2: current interruption member 160) below the safety vent (120),
wherein a central part (Figure B below) of the safety vent (120) and the current interrupt device (160) are connected to each other (paragraph 43; figure 2; Figure B below: connected by central portion 161)
Figure B: Annotated Min Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
536
1204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Min is directed to a secondary battery with an improved safety vent which prevents short-circuit pressure from being reduced (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Sciara’s container 10 and cover 11 to have a crimp coupling and current interruption member, as taught by Min, for a battery with an improved safety vent which prevents short-circuit pressure from being reduced.
With regard to claim 2, modified Sciara teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sciara also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the block is joined to the discharge hole by ball welding (paragraph 46; figures 1-6)
With regard to claims 3-4, modified Sciara teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sciara fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Min:
Claim 3
one end of the upper part of the battery case (paragraph 36; figure 1: can member 100) is bent to wrap around an outer peripheral part of the safety vent (paragraphs 41-43; figure 2: safety vent 120) and form a crimping part (Figure B above)
Claim 4
the safety vent comprises a curling part (Figure B above) that is bent at the outer peripheral part (Figure B above) of the safety vent (120), and wherein the crimping part (Figure B above) wraps around the curling part (Figure B above) to form a crimp coupling (Figure B above)
Min is directed to a secondary battery with an improved safety vent which prevents short-circuit pressure from being reduced (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Sciara’s container 10 and cover 11 to have a crimp coupling, as taught by Min, for a battery with an improved safety vent which prevents short-circuit pressure from being reduced.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights