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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are currently pending;
Claim 4 is canceled;
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently amended;
Claims 11-14 are new.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 11/28/2025
The objection to claim 4 is moot, and therefore withdrawn, in view of the cancellation of claim 4;
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are maintained;
The 103 rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the grooves 341a of Lee are merely described as being a continuous groove or a centrally disconnected pattern, and there is no teaching of the grooves in relation to the gas discharge openings. The Examiner disagrees as the argument is moot in view of the claim language. The claim language only limits “a plurality of stress absorbing portions….the stress absorbing portions are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of the cap-up” in claim 1. A “portion”, by definition, is a part of a whole. The claim language does not limit that the portions are discontinuous. As such, using broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be said that the continuous groove 341a of Lee can be seen as a whole and arbitrarily assigned portions fitting to the claim language.
Applicant also argues that it would be obvious that the grooves 341a of Lee would extend entirely around the circumference of the cap-up (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 1). The Examiner disagrees as the disclosure of Lee explicitly states, as pointed out by Applicant on pg. 7 of Remarks, that the grooves can be “a wholly connected line (e.g., may be a continuous groove) or a centrally disconnected pattern (e.g., ones of the grooves may be spaced from each other)”. As such, both options would have a reasonable expectation of success within the disclosure of Lee. In this view, even if the stress absorbing portions were to be amended to be discontinuous, rearrangement of the centrally disconnected grooves 341a of Lee would be an obvious modification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the stress absorbing portions” in lines 12 and 14 that should be corrected to “the plurality of stress absorbing portions” for consistency with its antecedent basis earlier in claim 1, lines 5-6;
Claims 2-3 and 5-14 all also include the limitation “the stress absorbing portions” that should be corrected to “the plurality of stress absorbing portions” for consistency with its antecedent basis in claim 1, lines 5-6;
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the gas discharge openings” in lines 10 and 15 that should be corrected to “the plurality of gas discharge openings” for consistency with its antecedent basis earlier in claim 1, line 5;
Claims 11-12 and 14 all also include the limitation “the gas discharge openings” that should be corrected to “the plurality of gas discharge openings” for consistency with its antecedent basis in claim 1, line 5;
Claim 12 includes the limitation “the spaces between the gas discharge openings” in lines 2-3 that should be corrected to, for example, “the spaces between adjacent ones of the gas discharge openings”, or otherwise made to be consistent with its antecedent basis, which is currently “spaces between adjacent ones of the gas discharge openings” in claim 1, lines 14-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the spaces between the stress absorbing portions” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the length of the stress absorbing portions" in lines 1-2 and “the length of spaces between the stress absorbing portions” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US-20170309881-A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly; a case accommodating the electrode assembly ([0064] electrode assembly 110); and a cap assembly coupled to an upper portion of the case ([0064] cap assembly 330 coupled to top end opening of the case 120) and comprising: a cap-up ([0065] cap up 340) having a plurality of gas discharge openings therein ([0046] 143a denotes the side exposed side surface where the bridge is not formed and internal gases are released, thereby denoting where the gas discharge openings are; see figs. 6-7) and a plurality of stress absorbing portions at an outer surface of the cap-up and extending toward an inside of the case ([0066]-[0068] groove 341a; figs. 6-7; [0061]; by definition, a portion is a part of a whole; given a whole of a continuous groove as 341a, as is visually represented in fig. 6, the whole can be arbitrarily portioned into a plurality of stress absorbing portions as claimed, as the claim language does not require the portions to be discontinuous); a safety vent below the cap-up and having a notch ([0065] safety vent 150); and a cap-down coupled to a lower portion of the safety vent (fig. 3; [0065] cap down 160), wherein the gas discharge openings are spaced apart from each other along a circumference of the cap-up (see fig. 6; 3 gas discharge openings spaced apart), and wherein the stress absorbing portions are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of the cap-up, and wherein the stress absorbing portions respectively overlap spaces between adjacent ones of the gas discharge openings in a direction from a center of the cap-up toward and outer edge thereof (see annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions are each a recess (fig. 7; [0068] groove 341a).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions have an arc shape extending along the circumference of the cap-up (figs. 6-7 groove 341a can be formed in a ring shape ([0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the safety vent has a notch in an upper surface thereof and is configured to rupture at an internal pressure equal to or higher than a reference pressure (fig. 7 [0065] safety vent 150 includes grooves; [0051] safety vent 150 ruptures when the internal pressure exceeds the rupture pressure), and wherein the stress absorbing portions in the cap-up are outside the notch with respect to a center of the case (fig. 7; [0068] groove 341a).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions are in the outer surface of the cap-up and have a smaller width at a lower portion than at an upper portion thereof, respectively (fig. 7; [0068] groove 341a).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the cap-up has a terminal portion that upwardly convexly protrudes at the center of the cap-up (fig. 7; [0066] plate portion 143), a coupling portion on an outer periphery of the terminal portion (fig. 7; [0066] flange portions 341), and a connection portion that connects the terminal portion and the coupling portion to each other (fig. 7; [0066] bridge portions 242), and wherein the stress absorbing portions extend along a circumference of the coupling portion (fig. 7; [0068] groove 341a).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Lee also teaches that the safety vent is coupled to cover an end of the coupling portion and at least a portion of an upper surface of the cap-up (fig. 7; [0065]-[0068] safety vent 150 surrounds and partially covers the top of coupling portion 341), and wherein the stress absorbing portions are exposed without being covered by the safety vent (fig. 7; [0068] groove 341a).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches the stress absorbing portions have a cross-sectional shape of any one of a trapezoid, a trapezoid that is downwardly recessed from a bottom of another trapezoid, a triangle, and a shape having a rounded bottom surface (fig. 7; [0068 groove 341a is a triangles).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the spaces between the stress absorbing portions overlap the gas discharge openings (see annotated fig. 6 above)
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the spaces between the stress absorbing portions do not overlap the spaces between the gas discharge openings (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the length of the stress absorbing portions is greater than the length of spaces between the stress absorbing portions (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the stress absorbing portions overlap a portion of the gas discharge openings (see annotated fig. 6 above).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO-2019212164-A1), hereinafter Lee ‘164.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Lee fails to teach that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding from outside of the stress absorbing portions.
Lee ‘164 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cap assemblies for batteries ([0006]). Lee ‘164 teaches that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding from outside of the stress absorbing portions (figs. 5-6; [0040]; [0048]; [0063]-[0066]; safety vent 150 is laser welded to the cap up where the safety vent surrounds the upper portion of the cap up at welding bead 155; consequently this would be outside the stress absorbing portion of Lee at the point where the safety vent overlaps the cap up).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee such that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding as in Lee ‘164. Doing so is a known method of securing the safety vent and cap up in the art.
Alternatively, claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20170309881-A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly; a case accommodating the electrode assembly ([0064] electrode assembly 110); and a cap assembly coupled to an upper portion of the case ([0064] cap assembly 330 coupled to top end opening of the case 120) and comprising: a cap-up ([0065] cap up 340) having a plurality of gas discharge openings therein ([0046] 143a denotes the side exposed side surface where the bridge is not formed and internal gases are released, thereby denoting where the gas discharge openings are; see figs. 6-7) and a plurality of stress absorbing portions at an outer surface of the cap-up and extending toward an inside of the case ([0066]-[0068] grooves 341a; figs. 6-7; [0061]; [0068] grooves may be spaced from each other, therefore there are a plurality); a safety vent below the cap-up and having a notch ([0065] safety vent 150); and a cap-down coupled to a lower portion of the safety vent (fig. 3; [0065] cap down 160), wherein the gas discharge openings are spaced apart from each other along a circumference of the cap-up (see fig. 6; 3 gas discharge openings spaced apart), and wherein the stress absorbing portions are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of the cap-up ([0068] grooves 341a may be spaced from each other). Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions 341a can overlap both the spaces between the gas discharge openings and overlap the gas discharge openings (see fig. 7 the left shown 341a overlaps a space between gas discharge openings and the right shown 341a overlaps a gas discharge opening; [0068] 341a can be a continuous groove, so can overlap both openings and spaces between openings of gas discharge with no effect on function).
Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the stress absorbing portions respectively overlap spaces between adjacent ones of the gas discharge openings in a direction from a center of the cap-up toward and outer edge thereof.
However, given that the grooves can be a centrally disconnected pattern, and that the grooves can overlap both gas discharge openings and spaces between the gas discharge openings with no obvious lack of function ([0068]), it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the plurality of stress absorbing portions such that the stress absorbing portions respectively overlap spaces between adjacent ones of the gas discharge openings in a direction from a center of the cap-up toward and outer edge thereof as an obvious modification. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions are each a recess (fig. 7; [0068] grooves 341a).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions have an arc shape extending along the circumference of the cap-up (fig. 7 grooves 341a can be formed in a ring shape ([0068]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the safety vent has a notch in an upper surface thereof and is configured to rupture at an internal pressure equal to or higher than a reference pressure (fig. 7 [0065] safety vent 150 includes grooves; [0051] safety vent 150 ruptures when the internal pressure exceeds the rupture pressure), and wherein the stress absorbing portions in the cap-up are outside the notch with respect to a center of the case (fig. 7; [0068] grooves 341a).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the stress absorbing portions are in the outer surface of the cap-up and have a smaller width at a lower portion than at an upper portion thereof, respectively (fig. 7; [0068] grooves 341a).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches that the cap-up has a terminal portion that upwardly convexly protrudes at the center of the cap-up (fig. 7; [0066] plate portion 143), a coupling portion on an outer periphery of the terminal portion (fig. 7; [0066] flange portions 341), and a connection portion that connects the terminal portion and the coupling portion to each other (fig. 7; [0066] bridge portions 242), and wherein the stress absorbing portions extend along a circumference of the coupling portion (fig. 7; [0068] grooves 341a).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Lee also teaches that the safety vent is coupled to cover an end of the coupling portion and at least a portion of an upper surface of the cap-up (fig. 7; [0065]-[0068] safety vent 150 surrounds and partially covers the top of coupling portion 341), and wherein the stress absorbing portions are exposed without being covered by the safety vent (fig. 7; [0068] grooves 341a).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches the stress absorbing portions have a cross-sectional shape of any one of a trapezoid, a trapezoid that is downwardly recessed from a bottom of another trapezoid, a triangle, and a shape having a rounded bottom surface (fig. 7; [0068 grooves 341a are triangles).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the spaces between the stress absorbing portions overlap the gas discharge openings by rearrangement of parts as an obvious modification. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the spaces between the stress absorbing portions do not overlap the spaces between the gas discharge openings by rearrangement of parts as an obvious modification. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee also teaches wherein the length of the stress absorbing portions is greater than the length of spaces between the stress absorbing portions by rearrangement of parts as an obvious modification. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the stress absorbing portions overlap a portion of the gas discharge openings by rearrangement of parts as an obvious modification. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO-2019212164-A1), hereinafter Lee ‘164.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Lee fails to teach that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding from outside of the stress absorbing portions.
Lee ‘164 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cap assemblies for batteries ([0006]). Lee ‘164 teaches that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding from outside of the stress absorbing portions (figs. 5-6; [0040]; [0048]; [0063]-[0066]; safety vent 150 is laser welded to the cap up where the safety vent surrounds the upper portion of the cap up at welding bead 155; consequently this would be outside the stress absorbing portion of Lee at the point where the safety vent overlaps the cap up).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee such that the safety vent is coupled to the cap-up through welding as in Lee ‘164. Doing so is a known method of securing the safety vent and cap up in the art.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722