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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 13 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.
Yokoshima (US-20200106077-A1) is newly applied to modify Burrows by modifying with aluminum material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 17/994,159 in view of Burrows (EP-0262070-A1).
Instant claim 19 claims the same subject matter as Independent claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159 with the addition that the rupture device is in an electrochemical cell, and the electrochemical cell has a housing, and the depressions are formed by stamping, wherein both depressions are formed by stamping unprepared regions of the inner side of the wall and the outer side of the wall. However, Burrows teaches that a rupture device may be used in the context of a battery cell that has a housing (see e.g., Burrows; col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent made in a cover for a hermetically sealed container, the cover and container corresponding to a housing; fig. 2, col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent corresponding to a rupture device arranged in a cover), and depressions 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), wherein both depressions are formed by stamping unprepared regions of the inner side of the wall and the outer side of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, the rupture web is formed in a cover of a hermetically sealed container so one side is arranged on an inner side facing the interior of the container and another side faces away from the interior). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the rupture device of copending Application No. 17/994,159 in an electrochemical cell with a housing and forming the depression by stamping as disclosed by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this in a cell so that pressure buildup in the cell may be released at certain predetermined pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 4 lines 46-60).
Claims 1-10, 13, 16-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 17/994,159 in view of Burrows (EP-0262070-A1) and Yokoshima (US-20200106077-A1).
Independent claim 1 of the instant application provides the same subject matter as Independent claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159 with the addition that the rupture device is in an electrochemical cell, and the electrochemical cell has a housing, and the depressions are formed by stamping. However, Burrows teaches that a rupture device may be used in the context of a battery cell that has a housing (see e.g., Burrows; col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent made in a cover for a hermetically sealed container, the cover and container corresponding to a housing; fig. 2, col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent corresponding to a rupture device arranged in a cover), and depressions 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the rupture device of copending Application No. 17/994,159 in an electrochemical cell with a housing and forming the depression by stamping as disclosed by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this in a cell so that pressure buildup in the cell may be released at certain predetermined pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 4 lines 46-60).
Independent claim 1 of the instant application provides the same subject matter as Independent claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159 with the further addition that the wall, the rupture device and the rupture web comprise a metallic aluminum material or are formed from a metallic aluminum material. However, Yokoshima discloses wherein the material of a rupture disc and the surrounding material may be aluminum (see e.g., Yokoshima; [0083], fig. 10, regarding wherein frame member 161, external terminal 162, connection plate 163, rupture disc 164 are formed of metal material which may include aluminum). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied aluminum material as disclosed by Yokoshima to the electrochemical cell with rupture device of copending Application No. 17/994,159 such that the wall, the rupture device, and the rupture web are aluminum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to an electrochemical device with conduction paths having low resistance and capable of achieving high output characteristics (see e.g., Yokoshima; [0007]).
Instant claim 2 claims the same subject matter as claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/994,159 because the depressions form the rupture web.
Instant claim 3 claims the same subject matter as claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 4 claims the same subject matter as claim 3 of copending Application No. 17/994,159. While instant claim 4 uses functional language to describe the breaking point, the structure of the breaking point claimed is the same as claim 3 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 5 claims the same subject matter as claim 9 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 6 recites functional language to describe an open state of the device. The structure of the rupture device as claimed is the same as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 7 claims the same subject matter as claim 8 of copending Application No. 17/994,159. Burrow may be further applied because Burrow teaches the rupture web is formed, for example, to be at least approximately oval (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 2, 4, wherein the rupture web is annular) or at least approximately rectangular in a cross-section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, which shows a cross section taken parallel to the main extension plane and is semi-rectangular in shape). 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 rupture web disclosed by copending Application No. 17/994,159 such that the rupture web is oval or rectangular. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a safety vent which is uniformly responsive to predetermined low pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 1 lines 46-61).
Instant claim 8 claims the same subject matter of claim 6 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 9 is not explicitly disclosed by copending Application No. 17/994,159.
However, Burrows may be applied to modify copending Application No. 17/994,159; Burrows teaches at least one breaking portion of the at least one rupture web is at least approximately U-shaped in a cross- section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall and in that 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., Burrows; annotated fig. 2, wherein the holding portion completes connects the legs of the U-shaped breaking portion) - for example, to a closed oval.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 copending Application No. 17/994,159 to have at least one breaking portion of the at least one rupture web is at least approximately U-shaped in a cross- section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall and in that at least one holding portion of the at least one rupture web connects legs of the U-shape to a closed shape as disclosed by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a safety vent which is uniformly responsive to predetermined low pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 1 lines 46-61).
Instant claim 10 claims the same subject matter as claim 5 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 13 claims the same subject matter as claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159, with the addition that the rupture device is in an electrochemical cell, and the electrochemical cell has a housing, and the depressions are formed by stamping. However, Burrows teaches that a rupture device may be used in the context of a battery cell that has a housing (see e.g., Burrows; col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent made in a cover for a hermetically sealed container, the cover and container corresponding to a housing; fig. 2, col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent corresponding to a rupture device arranged in a cover), and depressions 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the rupture device of copending Application No. 17/994,159 in an electrochemical cell with a housing and forming the depression by stamping as disclosed by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this in a cell so that pressure buildup in the cell may be released at certain predetermined pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 4 lines 46-60).
Instant claim 16 claims the same subject matter as claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/994,159 because the depressions form the rupture web. The addition of stamping “an unprepared region of the wall” does not contribute provide structure different from copending Application No. 17/994,159 because any area may be considered as “unprepared” prior to being stamped.
Instant claim 17 claims the same subject matter as claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159. Claim 17 claims “the depression which faces the interior is impressed into the inner side,” which does not structurally change the “at least one first depression, which is arranged on a first side of the wall component,” as claimed in claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,159.
Instant claim 18 claims the same subject matter as claim 8 of copending Application No. 17/994,159. Burrow may be further applied because Burrow teaches the rupture web is formed, for example, to be at least approximately oval (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 2, 4, wherein the rupture web is annular) or at least approximately rectangular in a cross-section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, which shows a cross section taken parallel to the main extension plane and is semi-rectangular in shape). 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 rupture web disclosed by copending Application No. 17/994,159 such that the rupture web is oval or rectangular. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a safety vent which is uniformly responsive to predetermined low pressures (see e.g., Burrows; col. 1 lines 46-61).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burrows (EP-0262070-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Burrows discloses an electrochemical cell (see e.g., Burrows; col. 3 lines 5-24, col. 4 lines 45-50, regarding the safety vent cover manufactured in the context of hermetically sealed batteries such as button type batteries, which are electrochemical cells) comprising:
- a housing, which surrounds the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Burrows; col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent made in a cover for a hermetically sealed container, the cover and container corresponding to a housing); and
- a rupture device, which is arranged on a wall of the housing or integrally formed with the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 2, col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent corresponding to a rupture device arranged in a cover), wherein the rupture device comprises at least one rupture web (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated fig. 2, 3, regarding the area including channels 7 and 7’ corresponding to at least one rupture web, and fig. 4 wherein the rupture web is integrally formed with the cover),
wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated figs. 2, 3, wherein the longitudinal direction along the rupture web is shown in annotated fig. 2 as extending horizontally across the rupture web, and annotated fig. 3 which shows a cross section of the rupture web having varying thickness due to the different depths of arcs 7 and 7’; col. 4 lines 37-46 further described how grooves 7 and 7’ may have different material thicknesses),
and/or (“and/or” for all claims is interpreted as “or”) 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, and by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side, facing away from the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated fig. 3; as previously described, the rupture web is formed in a cover of a hermetically sealed container so one side is arranged on an inner side facing the interior of the container and another side faces away from the interior),
wherein both depression are formed by stamping unprepared regions of the inner side of the wall and the outer side of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated fig. 3, the rupture web is formed in a cover of a hermetically sealed container so one side is arranged on an inner side facing the interior of the container and another side faces away from the interior, so one side is an inner side and the other side is an outer side).
“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.
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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:
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) 1-10, 13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (EP-0262070-A1), and in further view of Yokoshima (US-20200106077-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burrows teaches an electrochemical cell (see e.g., Burrows; col. 3 lines 5-24, col. 4 lines 45-50, regarding the safety vent cover manufactured in the context of hermetically sealed batteries such as button type batteries, which are electrochemical cells) comprising:
- a housing, which surrounds the interior of the electrochemical cell (see e.g., Burrows; col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent made in a cover for a hermetically sealed container, the cover and container corresponding to a housing); and
- a rupture device, which is arranged on a wall of the housing or integrally formed with the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 2, col. 2 lines 16-18, regarding the safety vent corresponding to a rupture device arranged in a cover), wherein the rupture device comprises at least one rupture web (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated fig. 2, 3, regarding the area including channels 7 and 7’ corresponding to at least one rupture web, and fig. 4 wherein the rupture web is integrally formed with the cover),
wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated figs. 2, 3, wherein the longitudinal direction along the rupture web is shown in annotated fig. 2 as extending horizontally across the rupture web, and annotated fig. 3 which shows a cross section of the rupture web having varying thickness due to the different depths of arcs 7 and 7’; col. 4 lines 37-46 further described how grooves 7 and 7’ may have different material thicknesses),
and/or (“and/or” for all claims is interpreted as “or”) 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, and by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side, facing away from the interior, of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; Annotated fig. 3; as previously described, the rupture web is formed in a cover of a hermetically sealed container so one side is arranged on an inner side facing the interior of the container and another side faces away from the interior).
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Burrows does not explicitly disclose wherein the wall, the rupture device and the rupture web comprise a metallic aluminum material or are formed from a metallic aluminum material. However, Yokoshima discloses wherein the material of a rupture disc and the surrounding material may be aluminum (see e.g., Yokoshima; [0083], fig. 10, regarding wherein frame member 161, external terminal 162, connection plate 163, rupture disc 164 are formed of metal material which may include aluminum). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied aluminum material as disclosed by Yokoshima to the electrochemical cell with rupture device of Burrows such that the wall, the rupture device, and the rupture web comprise of aluminum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to an electrochemical device with conduction paths having low resistance and capable of achieving high output characteristics (see e.g., Yokoshima; [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein the 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).
While 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 Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one rupture web, which has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction (see above regarding claim 1 and annotated figs. 2-3), is formed by a depression, which is arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall, (see above regarding claim 1 and annotated figs. 2-3; the first depression may correspond to the depression arranged on the inner side, facing the interior, of the wall, col. 4 lines 1-18, regarding press forming and stamping processes which impresses upon the material to form the depressions).
Regarding claim 4, modified Burrows 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 tears when a critical pressure and/or a critical temperature in the interior of the electrochemical cell is exceeded (see e.g., Burrows; col. 4 lines 46-60 regarding the preselected pressure range that determines the breaking point of the at least one breaking portions corresponding to the grooves 7, 7’ in the rupture web),
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., Burrows; annotated fig. 2 regarding the breaking portions and holding portions and col. 4 lines 46-60 which describes how the grooves with reduced thickness may yield under predetermined pressure; the non-reduced thickness portion corresponding to the holding portion would thereby be able to withstand more pressure and not yield to thereby maintain the connection).
Moreover, since there is no structural difference between the claimed breaking and holding portions of the claimed rupture web and that of Burrows, the rupture web of Burrows would inherently form predetermined breaking portions and holding portions. See MPEP 2114 I.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 4, wherein a 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 (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, col. 4 lines 37-46, wherein the grooves 7 may have a thickness of 0.003 inches while the surrounding material thickness including the thickness of the holding portion is 0.010 inches; the breaking portion has a material thickness less than the holding portion by at least 30%).
Regarding claim 6, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1. Burrows teaches 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., Burrows; fig. 4, the inner face of the rupture web may correspond with a rupture surface which is surrounded by the breaking portion grooves; col. 4 lines 46-60 describe the rupture in the context of a sealed battery, which releases a fluid that would flow past the rupture surface, therefore the rupture surface is a flow guiding element).
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 Burrows, the rupture web and rupture surface of Burrows would inherently 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 Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one rupture web has a closed shape (see e.g., Burrows; figs. 2-4, wherein the shape of the rupture web is a horseshoe shape, the shape forming a closed space having an interior region with an unbroken boundary to the exterior).
Regarding claim 8, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein 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 at most 20:1 (see e.g., Burrows; annotated figs. 2-3, wherein the at least one breaking portion extends in almost a complete circle and the at least one holding portion extends along a small fraction of a circle such that the length of the breaking portion to the length of the holding portion is at least 2:1).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 4, wherein 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 and at least one holding portion of the at least one rupture web connects legs of the U-shape to a closed shape or to a closed oval (see e.g., Burrows; annotated fig. 2, wherein the holding portion completes connects the legs of the U-shaped breaking portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one first depression and/or the at least one second depression, in a cross-section taken perpendicular to a main extension plane of the wall, are triangular, in the shape of an isosceles trapezoid, or arcuate (Burrow; fig. 3, wherein the depressions are arcuate as they curve inwards and are shaped like a bow, and the further depression 7’ may also correspond to isosceles trapezoid).
Regarding claim 13, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical system comprising one or more electrochemical cells (see e.g., Burrows; col. 3 lines 5-24, col. 4 lines 45-50, regarding the safety vent cover manufactured in the context of hermetically sealed batteries such as button type batteries, which are electrochemical cells and considered an electrochemical system) according to Claim 1,
and/or comprising: - a housing surrounding an interior of the electrochemical system; and - a rupture device which is arranged on a wall of the housing and is in particular integrally formed with the wall, wherein the rupture device comprises at least one rupture web, wherein the at least one rupture web has a thickness varying in the longitudinal direction, and/or 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 of the electrochemical system, and by at least one second depression, which is arranged on an outer side, facing away from the interior, of the wall of the electrochemical system, wherein the wall, the rupture device and the rupture web comprise a metallic aluminum material or are formed from a metallic aluminum material (see above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 1. Burrows further discloses wherein the at least one rupture web is formed by stamping an unprepared region of the wall (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).
“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.
While 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 17, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 3. As described above regarding claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon, Burrows discloses wherein the depression, the at least one first depression, which faces the interior is impressed into the inner side.
Regarding claim 18, modified Burrows teaches the electrochemical cell according to Claim 7. Burrow further discloses the rupture web formed to be oval (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 2, 4, wherein the rupture web is annular), or rectangular in a cross-section taken parallel to a main extension plane of the wall (see e.g., Burrows; fig. 3, which shows a cross section taken parallel to the main extension plane and is semi-rectangular in shape).
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 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 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