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 .
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.
Claims 11-12 are 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.
The instant specification details the following:
A distance between an upper surface of the protective film 13 and a lower surface of the shielding portion 122 ranges from 0.09 mm to 0.3 mm,” see [0039].
“Optionally, as shown in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, a distance between the lower surface of the shielding portion 122 and an upper surface of the boss 112 is 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm,” see instant spec [0040].
Whereas, Claims 11-12 recite:
(per Claim 11) wherein a protective film is disposed between the shielding portion and the boss, the protective film is connected to the boss, and a distance between an upper surface of the protective film and a lower surface of the shielding portion is 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm.
(per Claim 12) wherein a distance between a lower surface of the shielding portion and an upper surface of the boss is 0.09 mm to 0.3 mm.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. The discrepancy between the ranges discussed in the instant specification and claims render the claims indefinite because the desired metes and bounds of claimed invention are unclear. See MPEP 2173.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US-20220320677-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110287286-A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Guo teaches:
A battery, comprising (battery 2, [0069]):
a casing having an opening; a cell disposed in the casing; and a cover plate covering the opening of the casing (battery cell 10 in accommodated in a battery box which includes a casing 102 and cover plate 110 which covers the opening of the casing 102, see [0073] and Fig. 5),
wherein the cover plate comprises: a cover plate body provided with a first hole (“through hole 111 penetrates the cover plate 110 in a thickness direction,” see [0079]);
and a high temperature resistant sheet disposed on an upper surface of the cover plate body and covering an upper opening of the first hole (The protective member 150 has a high melting point in order to bear higher temperature, so as to reduce the risk of melt-through by the emissions and improve safety performance, see [0010]. “The protective member 150 may completely shield the through hole 111 or shield only part of the through hole 111,” see [0082].),
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet has a weak portion (the protective member 150 has a weak portion 153, see [0112]),
However, Guo does not clearly teach the following orientation of the weak portion 153:
and at least a part of an orthographic projection of the weak portion is located in the first hole in a direction perpendicular to the cover plate body.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery case with a safety vent (see Abstract), Ahn teaches a film unit 90 disposed on the cap plate 40, see [0059]. Ahn further teaches suitable embodiments of either cutting-plane lines (cut part penetrating through film unit 90) or a break line (notch not penetrating completely through the film unit 90), see [0060], [0063], and Figs. 6F and 7C. Both of the embodiments shown in Figs. 6F and 7C are taught to be a suitable configurations of a break unit to enable gas release from an open safety valve 30,
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the weak portions 153 of the protective member 150 of Guo to have the form of either embodiments shown in Figs. 6F or 7C of Ahn, because Ahn teaches that these are suitable shapes and configurations to introducing weak portions in order to enables gas release from a battery.
It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Guo does not necessarily teach:
wherein a thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet is 0.2 mm to 1 mm
The claimed thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet is interpreted to correspond to any thickness of Guo’s protective member 150. Guo teaches the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 (i.e., the high temperature resistant sheet) suitably has a thickness of 0.08 mm to 0.3 mm, which overlaps the claimed range, see [0023].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 because Guo teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Guo further does not necessarily teach:
and a depth of the weak portion accounts for 1/4 to 3/4 of the thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet.
However, Guo teaches the thickness of the is preferably less than the body portion of the protective member 150 which therefore overlaps with the claimed thickness of the weak portion subarea 153a in comparison to another thickness of the protective member 150, see [0115].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 because Guo teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Additionally, Guo teaches that having the thickness of the weak subarea 153a is less than that of the body portion 151 is preferable because when the high-temperature and high-pressure substance impacts the protective member 150, the connection of the weak subarea 153a and the body portion 151 is more likely to be broken, see [0115].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness of the weak subarea 153a in reference to the body portion 151 of the protective member 150 to arrive at the desired silicon oxide thickness, while optimizing the amount of time taken by the reaction
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed depth/thickness of “a depth of the weak portion accounts for 1/4 to 3/4 of the thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet,” without undue experimentation.
In the alternative, Ahn teaches that it is suitable to have the break unit include a notch having a thickness from about 20% to about 80% of a thickness of the film unit (see [0063]), which has significant overlap with the claimed range. Ahn further teaches this configuration allows for the break line to be relatively thin for easier cutting or tear-off according to an external pressure, see [0063]
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness ratio range of in order to arrive at favorable easier cutting or tear-off according to an external pressure
Regarding Claim 3, Gou in view of Ahn teaches either cutting-plane lines (cut part penetrating through film unit 90) or break lines (notch not penetrating completely through the film unit 90) are suitable for use as weak portions 153 (see Ahn-[0060] and [0063]), as render obvious above, thereby, meeting the following limitations:
wherein the weak portion comprises a crack or a plurality of holes.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo in view of Ahn teaches:
wherein the weak portion comprises a plurality of linear structures, and at least two linear structures intersect or intersect with extension lines (see Ahn-Figs. 6F and 7C).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Guo teaches:
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet further has a body portion connected to the cover plate body (the protection member 150 has a body portion 151 connected to the cover plate 110, see [0085])
and a shielding portion separating the body portion from the weak portion (one of ordinary skill could readily envision the claimed orientation based on the shielding portion 152 of with the modified weakened portion taught by Ahn, see Guo-Figs.4-8 and Ahn-Figs. 6F and 7C),
at least a part of the shielding portion is located above the first hole (the shielding portion 152 is shown to reside above through hole 111, see Guo-Fig. 8),
and the high temperature resistant sheet extends along a length direction of the cover plate body (the protective member 150 is shown to along a length direction of the cover plate body, see Guo-Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 9, Guo’s Figs. 7-8 shows the following claimed orientation:
wherein the shielding portion is an arc-shaped piece protruding in a direction away from the first hole .
Regarding Claim 10, modified Guo teaches:
wherein the cover plate body is provided with a boss (the cover plate 110 includes a protrusion 113 (i.e., a boss), see [0103] and Figs. 7-8),
and the shielding portion is located above the boss (the shielding portion 152 is shown to be located above the protrusion 113, see [0103] and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Guo teaches:
wherein a protective film is disposed between the shielding portion and the boss (the embodiment shown in Figs. 7-8 show a protective film 160 disposed between the shielding portion 152 and protrusion 113, see also [0106]-[0107]),
the protective film is connected to the boss (see Fig. 8),
Guo does not necessarily teach:
and a distance between an upper surface of the protective film and a lower surface of the shielding portion is 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm.
However, Guo’s Fig. 8 appears to indicate that a distance gap between the upper surface of the protective film 160 is contemplated by the disclosure, see annotated Fig. 8 below.
Additionally, Guo teaches that it is suitable to dispose a bonding member 170 between the protective member 150 and cover plate 110 in order to provide adhesive bonding, see [0095]-[0096]. As shown in the exploded view of Fig. 5, the thickness of the bonding member 170 influences the distance between the protective film and the shielding portion. While Guo is silent toward the exact desired thickness of the bonding member 170, Guo teaches a desire for the adhesiveness of the bonding member 170 to be provided in such a manner as to not be easily broken even at high temperature ranges, see [0096].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the to have optimized the thickness of the bonding member to arrive at the desired adhesive ability under high temperatures, which would provide a distance between the upper surface of the protective film 160 and a lower surface of the shielding portion 152.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed distance between the upper surface of the protective film 160 and a lower surface of the shielding portion 152 of “0.08 mm to 0.1 mm,” without undue experimentation.
Additionally, the instant specification states:
“A distance between an upper surface of the protective film 13 and a lower surface of the shielding portion 122 ranges from 0.09 mm to 0.3 mm. In this way, the protective film 13 forms further protection on the first hole 111 without interfering with the normal explosion-proof and pressure relief of the battery,” see instant spec. [0039].
However, this statement does not explicitly tie the claimed structure of “a distance between an upper surface of the protective film and a lower surface of the shielding portion is 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm” to a significance as it is unclear how the structure achieves the desired non-interference “with the normal explosion-proof and pressure relief of the battery” . Therefore, this limitations can be considered a mere design choice in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Guo does not explicitly teach:
wherein a distance between a lower surface of the shielding portion and an upper surface of the boss is 0.09 mm to 0.3 mm.
However, Guo teaches it is suitable for a protective film 160 to be disposed between the shielding portion 152 and protrusion 113, see Fig. 7-8 and [0106]. Additionally, Guo teaches the shielding portion 152 and the protrusion 113 can clamp the protective film 160, thereby reducing the risk of falling off of the protective film 160, see [0107]. While Guo is silent to the thickness of the protective film 160, Guo teaches the protective film requires the ability to reduce impurities entering the through hole 111 and to be easily broken under impact of the high-temperature and high-pressure substance, and does not influence discharge of the high-temperature and high-pressure substance, see [0106]. This disclosure teaches that the thickness of the protective film 160 is a result effective variable that balances the considerations of being able to reduce impurities entering the through hole 111 and to be easily broken.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness of the protective film 160 in order to balance the considerations of being able to reduce impurities entering the through hole 111 and to be easily broken.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “distance between a lower surface of the shielding portion and an upper surface of the boss is 0.09 mm to 0.3 mm,” via the thickness of the protective film 160 without undue experimentation.
Note, the instant specification states:
“Optionally, as shown in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, a distance between the lower surface of the shielding portion 122 and an upper surface of the boss 112 is 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm. This distance range ensures that there is no contact between the shielding portion 122 and the first hole 111, and a sufficient space is thus formed. The air existing in the space acts as a heat insulating layer, and when the internal temperature of the battery increases, the speed of temperature rise on the top portion of the cover plate body 11 may be slowed down,” see instant spec.
This directly indicates that a space containing air is a configuration of significance which achieves a desired heat insulating layer. However, the claim as written merely indicates a distance between a lower surface of the shielding portion and an upper surface of the boss which does not exclude intervening structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Guo does not explicitly teach:
wherein a thickness of the shielding portion is 0.2 mm to 1 mm,
However, Guo teaches the weak portion can suitably be 0.08 mm to 0.3 mm and that the shielding portion is thicker than the weak portion, therefore, there is at least some overlap with claimed thickness range, see [0117]. Additionally, Guo teaches a desire to have the overall protective member 150 to be thin in order to have small influence on energy density of the battery cell, see [0092].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness of the shielding portion in order arrive at a desired optimization between being thicker than the weak portion and remaining thin enough to have small influence on energy density of the battery cell.
Modified Guo further teaches:
and the thickness of the shielding portion is less than or equal to a thickness of the body portion (Guo teaches the thickness of the shielding portion 152 can be equal to or less than the body portion, see [0118]).
Regarding Claim 14, Guo teaches the protective member 150 can suitably be made of mica, see [0092], thereby meeting the following limitation:
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet is a mica sheet or a glass sheet.
Regarding Claim 15, Guo teaches with the following modification in view of Ahn:
A battery assembly, comprising: a plurality of batteries stacked along a direction perpendicular to large surfaces of the batteries (a group of battery cells 10 constituting a battery module wherein Fig. 3 shows the battery cells are stacked along a direction perpendicular to large surfaces of the batteries; see also [0071]),
wherein each of the batteries comprises: a casing having an opening (battery 2, [0069]);
a cell disposed in the casing; and a cover plate covering the opening of the casing (battery cell 10 in accommodated in a battery box which includes a casing 102 and cover plate 110 which covers the opening of the casing 102, see [0073] and Fig. 5),
wherein the cover plate comprises: a cover plate body provided with a first hole (“through hole 111 penetrates the cover plate 110 in a thickness direction,” see [0079]);
and a high temperature resistant sheet fixed to an upper surface of the cover plate body and covering an upper opening of the first hole (The protective member 150 has a high melting point in order to bear higher temperature, so as to reduce the risk of melt-through by the emissions and improve safety performance, see [0010]. “The protective member 150 may completely shield the through hole 111 or shield only part of the through hole 111,” see [0082].),
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet has a weak portion (the protective member 150 has a weak portion 153, see [0112]),
However, Guo does not clearly teach the following orientation of the weak portion 153:
and at least a part of an orthographic projection of the weak portion is located in the first hole in a direction perpendicular to the cover plate body.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery case with a safety vent (see Abstract), Ahn teaches a film unit 90 disposed on the cap plate 40, see [0059]. Ahn further teaches suitable embodiments of either cutting-plane lines (cut part penetrating through film unit 90) or a break line (notch not penetrating completely through the film unit 90), see [0060], [0063], and Figs. 6F and 7C. Both of the embodiments shown in Figs. 6F and 7C are taught to be a suitable configurations of a break unit to enable gas release from an open safety valve 30,
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the weak portions 153 of the protective member 150 of Guo to have the form of either embodiments shown in Figs. 6F or 7C of Ahn, because Ahn teaches that these are suitable shapes and configurations to introducing weak portions in order to enables gas release from a battery.
It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Guo teaches:
wherein the high temperature resistant sheets of the batteries are connected together as a single piece structure (optional limitation),
or the high temperature resistant sheets of the batteries are separated from one another (see Fig. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Guo does not necessarily teach:
wherein a thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet is 0.2 mm to 1 mm
The claimed thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet is interpreted to correspond to any thickness of Guo’s protective member 150. Guo teaches the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 (i.e., the high temperature resistant sheet) suitably has a thickness of 0.08 mm to 0.3 mm, which overlaps the claimed range, see [0023].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 because Guo teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Guo further does not necessarily teach:
and a depth of the weak portion accounts for 1/4 to 3/4 of the thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet.
However, Guo teaches the thickness of the is preferably less than the body portion of the protective member 150 which therefore overlaps with the claimed thickness of the weak portion subarea 153a in comparison to another thickness of the protective member 150, see [0115].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the weak portion 153 component of the protective member 150 because Guo teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Additionally, Guo teaches that having the thickness of the weak subarea 153a is less than that of the body portion 151 is preferable because when the high-temperature and high-pressure substance impacts the protective member 150, the connection of the weak subarea 153a and the body portion 151 is more likely to be broken, see [0115].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness of the weak subarea 153a in reference to the body portion 151 of the protective member 150 to arrive at the desired silicon oxide thickness, while optimizing the amount of time taken by the reaction
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed depth/thickness of “a depth of the weak portion accounts for 1/4 to 3/4 of the thickness of the high temperature resistant sheet,” without undue experimentation.
In the alternative, Ahn teaches that it is suitable to have the break unit include a notch having a thickness from about 20% to about 80% of a thickness of the film unit (see [0063]), which has significant overlap with the claimed range. Ahn further teaches this configuration allows for the break line to be relatively thin for easier cutting or tear-off according to an external pressure, see [0063]
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness ratio range of in order to arrive at favorable easier cutting or tear-off according to an external pressure
Regarding Claim 18, Gou in view of Ahn teaches either cutting-plane lines (cut part penetrating through film unit 90) or break lines (notch not penetrating completely through the film unit 90) are suitable for use as weak portions 153 (see Ahn-[0060] and [0063]), as render obvious above, thereby, meeting the following limitations:
wherein the weak portion comprises a crack or a plurality of holes.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Guo teaches:
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet further has a body portion connected to the cover plate body (the protection member 150 has a body portion 151 connected to the cover plate 110, see [0085])
and a shielding portion separating the body portion from the weak portion (one of ordinary skill could readily envision the claimed orientation based on the shielding portion 152 of with the modified weakened portion taught by Ahn, see Guo-Figs.4-8 and Ahn-Figs. 6F and 7C),
at least a part of the shielding portion is located above the first hole (the shielding portion 152 is shown to reside above through hole 111, see Guo-Fig. 8),
Regarding Claim 20, Guo teaches with the following modification in view of Ahn:
An electronic apparatus comprising: a battery comprising (“an electric device configured to receive electrical energy provided by the battery,” see [0027]):
a casing having an opening; a cell disposed in the casing; and a cover plate covering the opening of the casing (battery cell 10 in accommodated in a battery box which includes a casing 102 and cover plate 110 which covers the opening of the casing 102, see [0073] and Fig. 5),
wherein the cover plate comprises: a cover plate body provided with a first hole (“through hole 111 penetrates the cover plate 110 in a thickness direction,” see [0079]);
and a high temperature resistant sheet disposed on an upper surface of the cover plate body and covering an upper opening of the first hole (The protective member 150 has a high melting point in order to bear higher temperature, so as to reduce the risk of melt-through by the emissions and improve safety performance, see [0010]. “The protective member 150 may completely shield the through hole 111 or shield only part of the through hole 111,” see [0082].),
wherein the high temperature resistant sheet has a weak portion (the protective member 150 has a weak portion 153, see [0112]),
However, Guo does not clearly teach the following orientation of the weak portion 153:
and at least a part of an orthographic projection of the weak portion is located in the first hole in a direction perpendicular to the cover plate body.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery case with a safety vent (see Abstract), Ahn teaches a film unit 90 disposed on the cap plate 40, see [0059]. Ahn further teaches suitable embodiments of either cutting-plane lines (cut part penetrating through film unit 90) or a break line (notch not penetrating completely through the film unit 90), see [0060], [0063], and Figs. 6F and 7C. Both of the embodiments shown in Figs. 6F and 7C are taught to be a suitable configurations of a break unit to enable gas release from an open safety valve 30,
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the weak portions 153 of the protective member 150 of Guo to have the form of either embodiments shown in Figs. 6F or 7C of Ahn, because Ahn teaches that these are suitable shapes and configurations to introducing weak portions in order to enables gas release from a battery.
It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US-20220320677-A1) and Ahn et al. (US-20110287286-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Xu (US-20230327272-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo discloses the protective member 150 is a single integrated piece and, therefore, does not teach the following:
wherein the body portion is provided with a second mounting hole,
To solve the same problem of designing a battery with an explosion proof valve (see Abstract), Xu teaches having a separated structure for a protective member with top cover 40 and protective patch 30 arranged in a through hole 40, see Xu-Fig. 2 and [0103]-[0104]. Xu further teaches that having “a gap between the protective patch 30 and the hole wall of the through hole 41 may avoid interference between the insulating top cover 40 and the protective patch 30,” see [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the protective member 150 of Guo to have separated structure in which the shielding portion 152 is dispose within a through hole of the body portion 151, as taught by the structure of Xu, to avoid interference between the shielding portion 152 and the body portion 151.
It is noted, that there is no significant difference cited in the instant specification between having an integrated piece versus a two separate articles for the high temperature resistant sheet. It has been held that the use of a separable structure instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289, F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
One of ordinary skill could readily envision the following limitations in light of the modification given above in view of Guo-Figs.5-8 and Xu-Fig. 2.
the shielding portion covers the second mounting hole,
and the second mounting hole at least partially overlaps the first hole in a height direction.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Guo in view of Xu teaches:
wherein the second mounting hole is a through hole (the hole rendered obvious above is described by Xu as being a through hole, see Xu-[0105]),
and the shielding portion is disposed above the body portion (the shielding portion is shown to be above the body portion, see Guo-Figs. 7-8).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US-20220320677-A1) and Ahn et al. (US-20110287286-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Byun (US-20110206957-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Guo in view of Xu teaches:
wherein the second mounting hole is a through hole,
Modified Guo in view of Xu teaches having the shielding portion reside on the though hole and, therefore, does not teach:
and the shielding portion is embedded in the second mounting hole.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery with a vent, Byun teaches embedding a vent plate within a stepped portion 63, see Fig. 3-4 and [0049]. Byun further teaches this configuration allows for tight adhesion between the vent plate 34 and the stepped portion 63, see [0052]
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have embedded the shielding portion 153 of Guo into a stepped portion as taught by Byun to have tight adhesion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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. 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.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721