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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-112234309-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses
a non-metallic (see e.g., Wang; [0071], regarding injection molded insert 51 which is plastic) explosion-proof valve structure of a battery, comprising;
a cover assembly (see e.g., Wang; fig. 1, [0048], regarding cover assembly 100);
a housing connected in a sealed manner (see e.g., Wang; fig. 1, [0048], regarding housing 200, the cover assembly 100 covering the housing 200 thereby corresponding to connecting in a sealed manner); and
an injection molded part (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071], regarding inserts 51 of plastic part 30 formed by injection molding),
wherein the cover assembly is provided with a through hole (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071], regarding how the insert 51 is injection molded to fill the hole in the cover assembly 100), the injection molded part is fixedly connected with the cover assembly or the housing provided with the through hole (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071], regarding how the injection molded insert 51 of the plastic sheet 30 solidifies in the connection holes 52 which ensures the connection strength of the part), and seals the through hole (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]),
a plurality of fixing holes are arranged in an area where the cover assembly is connected with the injection molded part, the injection molded part is fixedly connected with the plurality of fixing holes, the injection molded part is formed in the area where the cover assembly is connected with the injection molded part by injection molding process, and an injection molding material of the injection molded part is filled into the plurality of fixing holes (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071], regarding the connection holes 52 of the cover corresponding to the fixing holes, which are arranged to correspond with the injection molded insert parts 51 on a one-to-one basis in order to form improved connection stability).
Wang discloses that the embodiment of the cover having the injection molded parts 51 on the plastic sheet 30 is in some embodiments (see e.g., Wang; [0070]-[0071], [0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the embodiment of the injection molded part fixed to the cover in the same embodiment as the cover assembly connected to the housing as disclosed by Wang above in order to ensure connection strength and stability in the explosion-proof sheet (see e.g., Wang; [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1, wherein the injection molded part comprises a body part and a weak part, and the weak part is arranged on the body part (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072], regarding the injection molded part comprising sheet 30 and inserts 51, wherein the sheet 30 corresponds to the body part and the inserts 51 correspond to the weak part arranged on the body part; [0072] further describes how the number of inserts 51 into the connection holes 52 determines burst threshold of the connection of the part with the cover which indicates that the breaking point).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 2, wherein the weak part comprises a sunken structure (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072], wherein the inserts 51 fill into the connection holes 52, and therefore the material sinks into the connection holes which corresponds to a sunken structure as claimed),
and the sunken structure comprises an annular sunken structure or a cambered sunken structure (see e.g., Wang; [0072], fig. 8, regarding a plurality of connection holes which extend annularly around the cover for inserts 51 to fill which may correspond to the annular sunken structure as claimed, or wherein fig. 8 shows how the inserts 51 are filled into the connection holes 52 in a convex or arched shape thereby corresponding with a cambered sunken structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1, wherein the injection molded part comprises a body part and a reinforcing part, the reinforcing part is arranged on the body part (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072], regarding the injection molded part comprising sheet 30 and inserts 51, wherein the sheet 30 corresponds to the body part and the inserts 51 correspond to the reinforcing part arranged on the body part).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 4.
Wang discloses an embodiment wherein the plurality of connection holes may be connecting grooves (see e.g., Wang; [0073]). Then, the injection molded part 51 (see e.g., Wang; [0071], fig. 8) would fill in the connecting grooves to form ribs, which correspond to the claimed reinforcing part comprising a plurality of reinforcing ribs, the plurality of reinforcing ribs are in a strip structure.
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 to embodiment of using grooves as the connecting part 52 and filling in the grooves with the injection molded part 51 as disclosed by Wang in order to improve connection stability (see e.g., Wang; [0073], [0071]).
Applying this embodiment of Wang, the claimed “one ends of the plurality of reinforcing ribs are connected, and the other ends are distributed radially,” is also taught by Wang. Provided with a plurality of reinforcing inserts 51, one ends of the inserts 51 may be considered as connected (“connected” is interpreted as linked together in some material way) because the inserts 51 are all integrated with sheet 30; thereby, sheet 30 connects the one ends of the plurality of reinforcing ribs. Furthermore, the inserts 51, including the other ends of the inserts 51, are distributed radially around the opening of the cover (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8), which corresponds to the claimed other ends distributed radially.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1, wherein the injection molded part comprises a body part, a weak part and a reinforcing part, the weak part is arranged on the body part, the reinforcing part is arranged on the body part, and the weak part and the reinforcing part are matched in a cross-connection manner (see e.g., Wang; annotated fig. 8 below, [0071]-[0072]). That is, the whole part of sheet 30 with injection molded inserts 51 may correspond with the body part, portions around the body part may correspond with the weak part, and the inserts 51 may correspond with the reinforcing part. Thus, both the weak part and reinforcing part are arranged on the body part. Furthermore, the weak part which is directed to a portion close to the reinforcing part are matched in a cross-connection manner as claimed.
The examiner notes that “the reinforcing part” and “the weak part” are not defined. In this case, “the weak part” as directed to in annotated fig. 8 is on the sheet 30, which Wang describes as the part that is broken through (see e.g., Wang; [0064]) and therefore may correspond with being a weak part. Furthermore, “the reinforcing part” as directed to in annotated fig. 8 and corresponding with the inserts 51 is disclosed by Wang as strengthening connection stability (see e.g., Wang; [0071]), and therefore may correspond with being reinforcing.
"Matched in a cross-connection manner" is interpreted as being connected to each other by some material means; there is material between the weak part and reinforcing part and therefore they are connected.
PNG
media_image1.png
505
1461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of a first opening of the through hole is larger than a diameter of a second opening of the through hole (see e.g., Wang; figs. 2-4, [0056]-[0057], regarding the structure of the opening including the protrusion 40, and particularly fig. 2 and fig. 4 which show that the through hole has varied diameters such that one smaller diameter may correspond with a first opening and another larger diameter may correspond with a second opening; for example, fig. 2 shows wherein the bottom side of the through hole has a wider diameter then an internal or upper side of the through hole).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1, wherein the injection molded part is provided with a convex part (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, regarding the inserts 51 of the injection molded part that fills the connecting holes 52 corresponding to a convex shape), the inner wall of the through hole is provided with a concave part (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072], regarding the connecting holes 52 which correspond with a concave part and is on an inner wall of the hole), and the convex part and the concave part are concave-convex matched (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072], wherein the injection molded insert 51 fills the connecting holes 52).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a battery (see e.g., Wang; [0008], [0076]), comprising the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-112234309-A) (see translation), and further in view of Seghi (US-20150202712-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the non-metallic explosion-proof valve structure according to claim 1. Wang discloses wherein the connecting holes 52 are arranged around the cover (see e.g., Wang; fig. 8, [0071]-[0072]), which may correspond with the claimed plurality of fixing holes arranged in regular or irregular distribution. That is, the example of fig. 8 wherein the fixing holes 52 are arranged on either ends of the through hole may correspond with a regular distribution as claimed because they are the same interval or distance apart from each other.
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of fixing holes is a chemically etched or laser-engraved fixing hole. However, Seghi discloses wherein fixing holes are laser-engraved (see e.g., Seghi; [0016]-[0018], regarding ultra short pulse laser which makes the holes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use laser-engraved fixing holes as disclosed by Seghi as the connecting holes of Wang in order to reduce or eliminate use of hazardous chemical treatments to provide increased or altered surface adhesion or chemical reaction properties, have a mass-production scalable process, minimize or reduce damaging the restructured or texturized material, and provide substantial increases in surface area for mechanical interlocking (see e.g., Seghi; [0016]).
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