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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 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.
Kim (US-20140045000-A1) is newly applied to claims 1, 13, and 19.
Regarding applicant’s first argument over the thickness varying in the longitudinal direction, Kim provides that the thickness of a rupture web varies in along the circumference, or the longitudinal direction of the rupture web.
Regarding applicant second argument, Kim is combined with Burrows to teach amended claim 19. Kim provides that the material of the cylindrical container including the rupture web may be aluminum, which renders the argument (2) of the rupture device and rupture web comprising a metallic aluminum material moot. Furthermore, Tyler (US-20160079578-A1) is newly applied in combination to teach amended claim 19. Tyler provides the stamping process of a vent on an unprepared surface similar to that of modified Kim. Therefore, applicant’s argument (1) regarding Burrows and the stamping process are moot. Furthermore, while the new combination of references teaches the method of forming the rupture web by stamping, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the at least one second depression" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 4-10, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20140045000-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses
an electrochemical cell comprising:
- a housing, which surrounds the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Kim; figs. 1A-B, [0037]); and
- a rupture device, which is arranged on a wall of the housing or integrally formed with the wall (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0050], regarding the circular safety vent on the bottom of the cylindrical cell), wherein the rupture device comprises a rupture surface and at least one rupture web which surrounds the rupture surface along a longitudinal direction of the at least one rupture web (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, wherein the rupture surface is the area enclosed by the regions A1, B1, A2, B2, the regions forming grooves corresponding to the rupture web), wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction along at least part of the rupture web (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0060], regarding regions A1 and A2 having smaller thicknesses than regions B1 and B2, wherein a thickness gradient is formed between the regions A and B).
Kim discloses that the cylindrical can, which includes the rupture device, may be comprised from materials including aluminum, aluminum alloy, or equivalent thereof (see e.g., Kim; [0038]). KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select aluminum from the list of possible materials of the cylindrical can as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an aluminum material in order to prevent a cylindrical can from being cracked due to an external shock applied during an assembling process while controlling a rupture pressure of the cylindrical can (see e.g., Kim; [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein the at least one rupture web has at least one breaking portion which breaks and/or (“and/or” is interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation as “or”) tears when a critical pressure and/or a critical temperature in the interior of the electrochemical cell is exceeded (see e.g., Kim; [0039], [0060], figs. 2A-D, regarding the function of the safety valve which ruptures when pressure abnormally increase, the regions A1 and A2 having the lowest thickness corresponding to the at least one breaking portions as they operate as ruptures parts of the safety vent which rupture when internal pressure increases), and
wherein the at least one rupture web has at least one holding portion, which, when a critical pressure and/or a critical temperature in the interior of the electrochemical cell is exceeded, maintains a connection between a rupture surface, surrounded by the at least one rupture web, and a region, surrounding the at least one rupture web, of the wall and around which the rupture surface is moved or pivoted (see e.g., Kim; [0060], figs. 2A-D, wherein the regions B1 and B2 with greater thicknesses operate as supporting parts of the safety vent which prevents cracks and correspond to the claimed holding portion; Kim does not further provide that the regions B1 and B2 fracture).
Moreover, since there is no structural difference between the claimed breaking and holding portions of the claimed rupture web and that of Kim, the rupture web of Kim would inherently form predetermined breaking portions and holding portions at the thin regions A1, A2, and thicker regions B1, B2, respectively (see MPEP 2114 I.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 4, wherein the thickness of the regions A1 and A2 are 10-20% the thickness of the first surface 111a (see e.g., Kim; fig. 2A-D, [0057]), and the thickness of the regions B1 and B2 are 40% greater than the thickness of the first surface 111a (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0058]), such that the thicknesses of the regions A1 and A2 compared to B1 and B2 overlaps with the claimed minimum material thickness of the at least one rupture web in the at least one breaking portion is at least 10% less or at least 30% less than a minimum material thickness of the at least one rupture web in the at least one holding portion.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein a rupture surface, surrounded by at least one breaking portion, in an open state of the rupture device forms a flow guiding element for fluid flowing out of the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Kim; [0039], [0047], wherein rupturing allows the internal gas to discharge outside, the rupture surface would necessarily form into a flow guiding element for gas to flow out).
With regard to the rupture surface forms an opening angle with a main extension plane of the wall of at least 10° and/or at most 80°, since there is no structural different between the claimed rupture web with rupture surface and that of Kim, the rupture web and rupture surface of Kim would necessarily form an opening angle with a main extension plane of the wall of at least about 10 and/or at most about 80 °(see MPEP 2114 I.).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one rupture web has a closed shape (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1.
Kim provides in the similar embodiment of fig. 3A-E, the claimed holding portion and breaking portion. In this case, the embodiment provides an additional region C with a greater thickness than regions A, B1, and B2. The region C is disclosed as about 80-100° or 90° with respect to the circumference (see e.g., Kim; [0064]-[0065]). In the embodiment of fig. 3A (and either further embodiment 3D or 3E), the immediate regions C may correspond with the claimed holding portion, and the remaining varying thickness parts including A, B1, and B2 may correspond with the breaking portion. Thus, because the region C is about 90° relative to the circumference, the region C is about 1/4 of the rupture web while the remaining breaking portion is about 3/4 of the rupture web. This range overlaps with the claimed a ratio of a length of at least one breaking portion of the at least one rupture web to a length of at least one holding portion of the at least one rupture web is at least 2:1 and/or (“and/or” is interpreted according to BRI as “or”) at most 20:1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 4.
Kim provides in the similar embodiment of fig. 3A-E, the claimed holding portion and breaking portion. In this case, the embodiment provides an additional region C with a greater thickness than regions A, B1, and B2. The region C is disclosed as about 80-100° or 90° with respect to the circumference (see e.g., Kim; [0064]-[0065]). In the embodiment of fig. 3A (and either further embodiment 3D or 3E), the immediate regions C may correspond with the claimed holding portion, and the remaining varying thickness parts including A, B1, and B2 may correspond with the breaking portion. This embodiment corresponds to the claimed at least one breaking portion of the at least one rupture web is U-shaped in a cross-section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall (see e.g., Kim; figs. 3A-E, wherein the breaking portion extending from regions A, B1, and B2 form about 75% of the circle which is U-shaped in a cross-sectional view) and at least one holding portion of the at least one rupture web connects legs of the U-shape to a closed shape (see e.g., Kim; figs. 3A-E, wherein the region C corresponding to the holding portion connects the ends of the claimed U-shape into a closed circle shape).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first depression, in a cross-section taken perpendicular to a main extension plane of the wall are arcuate (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2B, 3C).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses
the electrochemical system comprising
one or more electrochemical cells according to claim 1, and/or (“and/or” is interpreted according to BRI as “or”) comprising:
- a housing, which surrounds the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Kim; figs. 1A-B, [0037]); and
- a rupture device, which is arranged on a wall of the housing or integrally formed with the wall (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0050], regarding the circular safety vent on the bottom of the cylindrical cell), wherein the rupture device comprises a rupture surface and at least one rupture web which surrounds the rupture surface along a longitudinal direction of the at least one rupture web (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, wherein the rupture surface is the area enclosed by the regions A1, B1, A2, B2, the regions forming grooves corresponding to the rupture web), wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction along at least part of the rupture web (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0060], regarding regions A1 and A2 having smaller thicknesses than regions B1 and B2, wherein a thickness gradient is formed between the regions A and B).
Kim discloses that the cylindrical can, which includes the rupture device, may be comprised from materials including aluminum, aluminum alloy, or equivalent thereof (see e.g., Kim; [0038]). KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select aluminum from the list of possible materials of the cylindrical can as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an aluminum material in order to prevent a cylindrical can from being cracked due to an external shock applied during an assembling process while controlling a rupture pressure of the cylindrical can (see e.g., Kim; [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 7, wherein - the closed shape is an annular closed shape (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A, 3A).
Claim(s) 2-3, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20140045000-A1), and in further view of Burrows (EP-0262070-A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by stamping. However, Burrows discloses wherein at least one rupture web is formed by stamping (see e.g., Burrows; col. 4 lines 1-20, regarding grooves 7' being press formed, wherein stamping is a type of press forming process, and a further stamping zone to form the individual container covers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rupture web of Kim to be stamped as disclosed by Burrows because of the efficient, economical and mass production advantages (see e.g., Burrows; section 1 lines 46-61).
While modified Kim with Burrows does teach the method of forming the rupture web by stamping, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1, and the at least one rupture web, which has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the rupture web is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall. However, Burrows discloses a rupture web with a depression on both sides of material, such that one side is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions on both sides of the material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kim by providing the safety vent 1110 to also have a varying thickness depression on the inside wall of the battery casing as provided by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide low pressure sensitivity and responsiveness (see e.g., Burrows; section 2 lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 3.
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the depression which faces the interior is impressed into the inner side. However, Burrows discloses a rupture web with a depression on both sides of material, such that one side is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions on both sides of the material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kim by providing the safety vent 1110 to also have a varying thickness depression on the inside wall of the battery casing as provided by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide low pressure sensitivity and responsiveness (see e.g., Burrows; section 2 lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein the rupture web is formed by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side, facing away from the interior, of the wall (see above regarding claim 1, Kim; figs. 2B, 3B). Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by at least one first depression, which is arranged on an inner side, facing the interior, of the wall. However, Burrows discloses a rupture web with a depression on both sides of material, such that one side is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions on both sides of the material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kim by providing the safety vent 1110 to also have a varying thickness depression on the inside wall of the battery casing as provided by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide low pressure sensitivity and responsiveness (see e.g., Burrows; section 2 lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 13, wherein the rupture web is formed by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side, facing away from the interior, of the wall (see above regarding claim 1, Kim; figs. 2B, 3B). Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by at least one first depression, which is arranged on an inner side, facing the interior, of the wall. However, Burrows discloses a rupture web with a depression on both sides of material, such that one side is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions on both sides of the material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kim by providing the safety vent 1110 to also have a varying thickness depression on the inside wall of the battery casing as provided by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide low pressure sensitivity and responsiveness (see e.g., Burrows; section 2 lines 4-12).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20140045000-A1), and in further view of Tyler (US-20160079578-A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by stamping an unprepared region of the wall. "Unprepared" is interpreted in this context as metal material that has not been shaped/formed. The stamping processes which form the rupture web taught by Burrows is applied to areas of the material that are unshaped. However, Tyler discloses a vent on an electrochemical cell wherein the vent with fracture points is stamped (see e.g., Tyler; abstract, [0008]-[0010], [0029]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rupture web of Kim to be formed by stamping as disclosed by Tyler in order to prevent bulky vents, reduced venting efficiency, and increase in cost or volume (see e.g., Tyler; [0006]).
While modified Kim does teach the method of forming the rupture web by stamping, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20140045000-A1), and in further view of Burrows (EP-0262070-A1) and Tyler (US-20160079578-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses
an electrochemical cell comprising:
- a housing, which surrounds the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Kim; figs. 1A-B, [0037]); and
- a rupture device, which is arranged on a wall of the housing or integrally formed with the wall (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0050], regarding the circular safety vent on the bottom of the cylindrical cell), wherein the rupture device comprises at least one rupture web, wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side facing away from the interior of the wall. (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, wherein the rupture surface is the area enclosed by the regions A1, B1, A2, B2, the regions forming grooves corresponding to the rupture web), wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction along at least part of the rupture web (see e.g., Kim; figs. 2A-D, [0060], regarding regions A1 and A2 having smaller thicknesses than regions B1 and B2, wherein a thickness gradient is formed between the regions A and B).
Kim discloses that the cylindrical can, which includes the rupture device, may be comprised from materials including aluminum, aluminum alloy, or equivalent thereof (see e.g., Kim; [0038]). KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select aluminum from the list of possible materials of the cylindrical can as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an aluminum material in order to prevent a cylindrical can from being cracked due to an external shock applied during an assembling process while controlling a rupture pressure of the cylindrical can (see e.g., Kim; [0007]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the rupture web comprises at least one first depression which is arranged on an inner side, facing the interior of the wall. However, Burrows discloses a rupture web with a depression on both sides of material, such that one side is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions on both sides of the material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kim by providing the safety vent 1110 to also have a varying thickness depression on the inside wall of the battery casing as provided by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide low pressure sensitivity and responsiveness (see e.g., Burrows; section 2 lines 4-12).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by stamping an unprepared region of the wall. "Unprepared" is interpreted in this context as metal material that has not been shaped/formed. The stamping processes which form the rupture web taught by Burrows is applied to areas of the material that are unshaped. However, Tyler discloses a vent on an electrochemical cell wherein the vent with fracture points is stamped (see e.g., Tyler; abstract, [0008]-[0010], [0029]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rupture web of Kim to be formed by stamping as disclosed by Tyler in order to prevent bulky vents, reduced venting efficiency, and increase in cost or volume (see e.g., Tyler; [0006]).
While modified Kim does teach the method of forming the rupture web by stamping, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights