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 .
The Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 8, 15; canceled claims 3-5, 9-14, 17-20. The pending claims are claims 1, 2, 6-8, 15, 16.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., CN 203707194.
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al., teaches an electrochemical apparatus (0006; 0011), comprising: a housing (0008-0009) having a cavity (groove/recess; opening) (0008; 0013; 0015), and the housing comprises a wall (0008-0012);
wherein the wall is provided with a stress-weak zone (recess or groove 113; 0008-0013; 0040), wherein the wall has an outer end edge (side wall 111) and a first zone (Fig. 1-2), wherein the first zone has a first outer edge (side wall 111), the first outer edge coincides with the outer end edge (Fig. 1-2), and the stress-weak zone is arranged in the first zone (groove 113; Fig. 1-2).
Wu et al., does not teach a ratio of an area of the first zone to an area of the wall ranges from 30% to 50%; and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
Wu teaches (1) wherein the first zone is an annular structure (0009; 0015), the first zone has a first inner edge (0035; side wall 111), and the first inner edge is a circle formed by connecting line segments (0035; side wall 111), wherein the line segments are formed by extension of points on the first outer edge toward the inside of the wall (Fig. 1-2) by a same first distance L1 in a direction perpendicular (“A” in Fig. 1) to the first outer edge (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Wu et al., teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (0006; 0011) satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(a)the stress-weak zone (groove 113; Fig. 1-2) is a continuous structure or a discontinuous structure (groove 113; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Wu et al., does not teach wherein the electrochemical apparatus satisfies one of the following conditions: (a) 0.1<L1/L2<0.4, L2 is a second distance between the outer end edge and a geometric center of the wall.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Wu et al., teaches wherein the wall is circular (Fig. 1-2), and the first zone is annular (Fig. 1-2); and the first zone has an inner radius of R1 (Fig. 1-2) and an outer radius of R (Fig. 1-2).
Wu does not teach the value of R.
Although the prior art of record comprises an inner radius and an outer radius of the circular wall, the measurement of the inner radius and the outer radius would be dependent on the ideal measurement because: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 8, Wu et al., teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (0006; 0011) satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(a) the wall (side wall 111) is in an asymmetrical shape (Fig. 3-4), and the first zone is an asymmetric ring (groove 113) (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Wu et al., teaches electronic device (0004; 0034), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (0034), wherein the electrochemical apparatus (0034-0036) comprises: a housing having a cavity (0016; 0036), and the housing comprises a wall (0008; 0010) wherein the wall is provided with a stress-weak zone (0008; 0020; 0035).
wherein the wall has an outer end edge and a first zone (0015; “opening edge of the outer shell”), wherein the first zone has a first outer edge (0015; “opening edge of the outer shell”), the first outer edge coincides with the outer end edge (0035; “opening edge of the outer casing”), and the stress-weak zone is arranged in the first zone (recess or groove 113; 0008-0013; 0040); and does not teach a ratio of an area of the first zone to an area of the wall ranges from 30% to 50%.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, (1) wherein the first zone is an annular structure (0009; 0015), the first zone has a first inner edge (side wall 111), and the first inner edge is a circle formed by connecting line segments (0035; side wall 111), wherein the line segments are formed by extension of points on the first outer edge toward the inside of the wall (0035; side wall 111) by a same first distance L1 in a direction perpendicular to the first outer edge (Fig. 1, 5, 9; “A”, “B”. “C”).
Regarding claim 16, Wu et al., teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (0006; 0011), satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (a) the stress-weak zone is a continuous structure or a discontinuous structure (Fig. 1-2; groove 113); (f) the wall is a wall with the largest area of the housing (wall 111; Fig. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Wu merely discloses a groove 113 on a cylindrical wall…In contrast thereto, the stress-weak zone of the present invention is not formed on a cylindrical wall like in Wu but instead is a planar shape which may be annular.”
However, “annular” is synonymous with “circular, ring-shaped, round, cylindrical” and Wu teaches a cylindrical structure having a groove (0014), which is a stress-weak zone, and which is a safety feature.
.
In addition, regarding the stress-weak zone of the Application, the Applicant argues that “Wu does not provide any suggestion of general conditions which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to "discover the optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation" as asserted by the Examiner.”
However, Wu has a safety feature regarding a groove in the battery case:
“The outer shell is a shell with an opening, and a groove is formed on the outer shell. The thickness of the bottom of the groove is less than the thickness of the side wall of the outer shell, and the thickness of the bottom of the groove is less than the thickness of the bottom of the outer shell.”(0008).
Additionally, Wu et al., teaches “A groove is formed on the outer casing…gas accumulation causes the outer casing of the secondary battery to expand…. Because the bottom of the groove is the thinnest, it will crack first, allowing the gas inside the secondary battery to escape smoothly, thus improving the safety performance of the secondary battery.” (0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights