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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 4-9 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8 of claim 1, “the venting part have” should read “the venting part has”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, as amended, introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. If the new matter has been entered into the claims or affects the scope of the claims, the claims affected should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the ground that it recites elements without support in the original disclosure. See Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 559, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(A written-description question often arises when an applicant, after filing a patent application, subsequently adds "new matter" not present in the original application.); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). See also MPEP 608.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “the venting part having a width and a length, the length being longer than the width, and a notch that divides the venting part in two”. The present specification is silent regarding this limitation. While page 7, line 17 – page 8, line 6 describes that a notching process may result in the venting part 230 having a thickness less than the surrounding area, it is silent regarding the specifically disclosed notch as claimed in amended claim 1. Furthermore, while the drawings depict a curved line across the venting part 130 or 230, it is not disclosed or identified as being the claimed notch anywhere in the original disclosure. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. See also MPEP 2163.02. The original disclosure including the drawings and specification does not define or support the notch as claimed. It is further noted that when the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). See also MPEP 2125 II. The specification is silent regarding the length being longer than the width as claimed, as well as regarding the drawings being to scale. Therefore, the limitations regarding the proportions of the venting area lack written support.
Claims 4-5 further define the location and shape of the notch, and are therefore contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “the venting part is spaced at an equal distance from both terminals”. The present specification is silent regarding the spacing and distance between the venting part and the terminals. Furthermore, as the specification does not explicitly state that the drawings are to scale, it can not be reasonably conveyed to the skilled artisan that the venting part is spaced at an equal distance from both terminals. While the drawings appear to represent the venting part between the terminals, "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). See also MPEP 2125 II. The precise spacing as claimed therefore is not conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art by the original disclosure.
Claims 7 and 9 do not remedy the lack of support of the limitations claimed in claim 1, and are therefore rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the middle portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite or define a middle portion, rendering the limitation unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130273411 A1) in view of Shimada (US 20200194759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a prismatic secondary battery (paragraphs 0036, 0041, figure 1) comprising: a battery case including six flat surfaces that are first to sixth surfaces to form a hexahedral shape (paragraphs 0036, 0041, annotated figure 1, case 20), the first and third surfaces having an area wider than the second and fourth surfaces (paragraph 0041, annotated figure 1), and the fifth and sixth surfaces having the widest area (paragraph 0041, annotated figure 1); a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal which are disposed on at least one surface of the first, second, and fourth surfaces (paragraphs 0036, 0042, annotated figure 1, positive electrode terminal 42 and negative electrode terminal 41 are located on the second and fourth surfaces, respectively); and a venting part disposed on the third surface (paragraph 0047, annotated figure 1, vent hole 35). Kim further discloses that the venting area comprises a notch (paragraph 0047, figure 1, notch 47a), and depicts that the venting part has a length longer than a width (figure 1, vent hole 35). Kim does not explicitly disclose that the venting part has a width and a length, the length being longer than the width, and a notch that divides the venting part in two.
Shimada discloses a prismatic nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive and negative terminal and a gas discharging valve (Shimada paragraphs 0012, 0016-0017, figure 1). Shimada further discloses that the gas discharging valve comprises a recess portion extending in a front-back direction and connecting to the recess along the edge of the gas discharge valve at both ends (Shimada paragraph 0031, figure 2, diving the gas discharging valve in two). The reference teaches that L2, corresponding to the claimed width, is preferably less than L1, corresponding to the claimed length, and that the recess according to these features allows for fracture of the valve and efficient gas discharge (Shimada paragraphs 0031, 0033). Shimada and Kim are analogous because they both disclose prismatic battery housings with venting structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the venting part disclosed by Kim to include the recessed part and dimensions disclosed by Shimada. Doing so would provide efficient gas discharge from the fractured vent.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses that the positive electrode terminal is disposed on one of the second surface and the fourth surface, and the negative electrode terminal is disposed on a remaining of the second surface and the fourth surface (paragraphs 0036, 0042, annotated figure 1, positive electrode terminal 42 and negative electrode terminal 41 are located on the second and fourth surfaces, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding the notch being disposed in the width of the venting part.
Shimada discloses a prismatic nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive and negative terminal and a gas discharging valve (Shimada paragraphs 0012, 0016-0017, figure 1). Shimada further discloses that the gas discharging valve comprises a recess portion extending in a front-back direction and connecting to the recess along the edge of the gas discharge valve at both ends, resulting in a notch in the L2 direction, corresponding to the claimed width (Shimada paragraphs 0031, 0033, figure 2, diving the gas discharging valve in two). The reference teaches that the recess according to these features allows for fracture of the valve and efficient gas discharge (Shimada paragraphs 0031, 0033). Shimada and Kim are analogous because they both disclose prismatic battery housings with venting structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the venting part disclosed by Kim to include the recessed part in the width direction, equivalent to the claimed notch, disclosed by Shimada. Doing so would provide efficient gas discharge from the fractured vent.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses that only a single venting part is disposed on the third surface (paragraphs, 0047, figures 1-2, reference is made to only one vent hole).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses that the venting part is located on the middle portion between the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal (paragraph 0047, figure 1, vent hole 35).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding wherein the venting part is spaced at an equal distance from both terminals.
Shimada discloses a prismatic nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive and negative terminal and a gas discharging valve (Shimada paragraphs 0012, 0016-0017, figure 1). Shimada further discloses that the gas discharging valve is preferably formed at a position substantially the same distance away from the positive electrode external terminal and the negative electrode external terminal to discharge gas more smoothly (Shimada paragraph 0027). Shimada and Kim are analogous because they both disclose prismatic battery housings with venting structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the venting part disclosed by Kim to be positioned as disclosed by Shimada for the purpose of discharging gas more smoothly.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further discloses that the venting part does not overlap with the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal along a vertical axis parallel to the second or fourth surface (paragraph 0047, see annotated figure 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130273411 A1) in view of Shimada (US 20200194759 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 20140295220 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding wherein the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal are disposed on the first surface.
Mori discloses a secondary battery comprising a case for housing an electrode assembly formed in a rectangular shape formed of six wall portions (Mori paragraphs 0034 0073, 0085, figure 1). Mori further discloses that the positive and negative electrode terminals are arranged on an outer surface of the case, and a gas exhaust valve is formed in a region on an opposite side of the case of where the terminals are arranged (Mori paragraph 0034, annotated figure 2, gas exhaust valves 45 located on third surface, terminals 6 located on first surface). The reference teaches that positioning the terminals in a region of the case farthest from the gas exhaust valves prevents constituents of a gas and an electrolytic solution discharged from the valves from adhering to the terminals (Mori paragraph 0035). Mori and Kim are analogous because they both disclose prismatic secondary battery cases with venting structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kim to have the terminals arranged opposite the gas valve, equivalent to on the first surface, as disclosed by Mori. Doing so would prevent constituents of a gas and an electrolytic solution discharged from the valves from adhering to the terminals.
PNG
media_image2.png
689
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130273411 A1) in view of Shimada (US 20200194759 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemoto et al. (US 20100032039 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding wherein the notch is wave-shaped.
Nemoto discloses a pressure relief valve which can release excess gas for secondary batteries comprising an openable slit and fixed to an external container (Nemoto paragraphs 0026-0027, 0061, 0100). Nemoto further discloses that the slit may be S-shaped, equivalent to the claimed wave-shaped, resulting in a longer slit than when straight-lined, allowing for a reduction in size and operating pressure (Nemoto paragraphs 0056, figure 3c). Nemoto and Kim are analogous because they both disclose venting structures for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the notch disclosed by modified Kim to be S-shaped as disclosed by Nemoto. Doing so would allow for preferred size and operating pressure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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. While the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 set forth in the previously mailed Office Action are withdrawn in view of the amendments, it is noted that should the new and amended limitations currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) be removed, the former rejections would once again be upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727