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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 & 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880) in view of Park (US20170207439).
Regarding Claim 1, Ko discloses a secondary battery ([008]) comprising:
A cylindrical case (cylindrical can-110, [0031]);
An electrode assembly in the cylindrical case (electrode assembly-120, [0031]);
A cap assembly configured to seal the cylindrical case (cap assembly-140, [0036], Fig. 2) and including a cap-down electrically connected to the electrode assembly (cap-down-146, [0039], Fig. 2), a cap-up coupled to an upper portion of the cap-down (cap-up-141, [0039]), and a vent plate between the cap-down and the cap-up (safety plate-143 acts as vent plate, [0059], Fig. 2).
Ko discloses a vent plate (safety vent-143, Fig. 3).
The examiner notes that the structure of Ko is the same shape as the instant vent plate (see instant Fig. 3), but is not formed of a first plate and second plate that are distinct structures.
Ko does not directly disclose wherein the vent plate comprises a first plate; and a second plate coupled to an outside of the first plate, and the first plate overlaps an opening through the second plate that is between locations where the second plate is coupled to the outside of the first plate, and wherein the first plate has rigidity less than that of the second plate.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim “rigidity” can be defined as a property relating to the ability to bend or break. It is the examiner’s position that “wherein the first plate has rigidity less than that of the second plate” can be interpreted to mean that the first plate is configured to break while the second plate remains intact.
Park discloses a cylindrical battery with a vent plate structure that includes a first plate and a second plate (cap assembly, [003], middle plate-134 acts as second plate, and vent plate-132 acts as first plate). Park further discloses wherein the first plate overlaps an opening of the second plate (Fig. 3 shows opening in middle plate-134 acting as second plate, [0049]). Park teaches that this structure heat resistant characteristics ([0063]).
The examiner notes that the lower valve plate acts as the first plate and upper valve plate acts as the second plate coupled to the first plate.
The examiner notes that annotated Fig. 2 of Ko shows where the teachings of Park would be applied to the vent plate structure of Ko.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ko with the teachings of Park to have wherein the vent plate comprises a first plate; and a second plate coupled to an outside of the first plate, and the first plate overlaps an opening through the second plate that is between locations where the second plate is coupled to the outside of the first plate, and wherein the first plate has rigidity less than that of the second plate. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved sealing structure and safety of cylindrical batteries.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 5, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ko further discloses wherein the first plate comprises a central part having a notch, a first bent part extending upward from the central part, and an extension part extending outward from the first bent part (see annotated Ko Fig. 2, vent groove-143d acts as notch, first bent part extending upward from the central part denoted by vertical portion that leads to main body-143a, main body-143a acts as extension part).
Regarding Claim 6, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko further discloses wherein the second plate comprises:
A coupling part having a coupling groove in which the extension part is seated (see annotated zoomed Fig. 2 below);
A second bent part extending upward from the coupling part (see annotated zoomed Fig. 2 below); and
A fixing part extending inward from the second bent part to cover a top surface of the cap-up (see annotated zoomed Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
397
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Zoomed Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 7, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ko further discloses wherein the extension part is between a bottom surface of the cap-up and a top surface of the second plate (see annotated Zoomed Fig. 2 above).
Claim(s) 2, 3 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880) in view of Park (US20170207439) in view of Yokoyama (US20130309529).
Regarding Claim 2, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko does not directly disclose wherein the first plate has a thickness less than that of the second plate.
Yokoyama discloses wherein the upper valve plate has a thickness of 0.15 mm ([0082]) and wherein the lower valve plate has a thickness of 0.10 mm ([0081]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko with the teachings of Yokoyama to have wherein the first plate has a thickness less than that of the second plate. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved sealing structure and safety of cylindrical batteries.
Regarding Claim 3, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ko does not directly disclose wherein the first plate and second plate are made of the same material.
Yokoyama discloses wherein both the upper and lower valve plates are made of aluminum ([0053], [0081]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko with the teachings of Yokoyama to have wherein the first plate and second plate are made of the same material.
Regarding Claim 10, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ko does not directly disclose wherein the vent plate and cap-down are made of the same material.
Yokoyama discloses a cylindrical battery that contains a vent structure (valve plate and vent hole, [0026]). Yokoyama further discloses wherein the vent structure is formed of a lower valve plate and an upper valve plate ([0045], lower valve plate-15, upper valve plate-13, [0045]). Yokoyama further discloses wherein the lower and upper valve plates are electrically connected to each other ([0057]). Yokoyama further discloses wherein during a pressure buildup the lower valve plate is configured to rupture first ([0058-59]). Yokoyama discloses wherein both the upper and lower valve plates are made of aluminum ([0053], [0081]). Yokoyama teaches that this two plate structure for the vent plate provides improved sealing structure and safety of cylindrical batteries ([001]).
The examiner notes that Yokoyama does not have a cap-down structure, and therefore the lower valve plate functions as a cap-down structure that closes the vent plate within the cap assembly.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ko with the teachings of Yokoyama to have wherein the vent plate and cap-down are made of the same material.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880) in view of Park (US20170207439) further in view of Lee (US20110097612).
Regarding Claim 4, Ko in view of Park discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko discloses wherein the cap assembly can be formed of a metallic material such as aluminum ([0018])
Ko further discloses wherein the vent plate and the cap-down are made of materials different from each other, respectively.
Lee discloses a battery with a safety vent and a cap assembly with a cap-down structure (Fig. 3 to 5, cap assembly-3, safety valve-32, [0019]). Lee further discloses wherein the safety valve is made of a non-metallic material ([0019]). Lee teaches that this structure provides improved production efficiency ([0022]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko with the teachings of Lee to have wherein the vent plate and the cap-down are made of materials different from each other, respectively. This modification would yield the expected result of improved production efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880).
Regarding Claim 8, Ko discloses a secondary battery ([008]) comprising:
A cylindrical case (cylindrical can-110, [0031]);
An electrode assembly in the cylindrical case (electrode assembly-120, [0031]);
A cap assembly configured to seal the cylindrical case (cap assembly-140, [0036], Fig. 2) and including a cap-down electrically connected to the electrode assembly (cap-down-146, [0039], Fig. 2), a cap-up coupled to an upper portion of the cap-down (cap-up-141, [0039]), and a vent plate between the cap-down and the cap-up (safety plate-143 acts as vent plate, [0059], Fig. 2).
Ko does not directly disclose wherein vent plate has rigidity less than that of the cap-down.
The examiner notes that rigidity is defined as the inability to be bent or forced out of shape.
Ko discloses wherein the safety vent is designed to upwardly invert in the case of internal pressure ([0040]), whereas the cap-down is configured to be allow the internal gas to be discharged without being altered ([0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Ko to have wherein vent plate has rigidity less than that of the cap-down.
Regarding Claim 12, Ko discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ko further discloses wherein the vent plate comprises:
a central part having a notch, a first bent part extending upward from the central part, and an extension part extending outward from the first bent part (see annotated Ko Fig. 2, vent groove-143d acts as notch, first bent part extending upward from the central part denoted by vertical portion that leads to main body-143a, main body-143a acts as extension part).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880) in view of Lee (US20110097612).
Regarding Claim 11, Ko discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko discloses wherein the cap assembly can be formed of a metallic material such as aluminum ([0018])
Ko further discloses wherein the vent plate and the cap-down are made of materials different from each other, respectively.
Lee discloses a battery with a safety vent and a cap assembly with a cap-down structure (Fig. 3 to 5, cap assembly-3, safety valve-32, [0019]). Lee further discloses wherein the safety valve is made of a non-metallic material ([0019]). Lee teaches that this structure provides improved production efficiency ([0022]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko with the teachings of Lee to have wherein the vent plate and the cap-down are made of materials different from each other, respectively. This modification would yield the expected result of improved production efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20170309880) in view of Kim (US20140045000).
Regarding Claim 9, Ko discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko does not directly disclose wherein the vent plate has thickness less than that of the cap-down.
Kim discloses a safety vent and cap-down structure (safety plate-142, cap-down-144, [0047]). Kim further discloses wherein the safety vent thickness can be adjusted to control the rupture pressure of the safety vent ([0039]).
The examiner notes that the claim language “thickness less than that of the cap-down” can be met by any incremental difference in thickness between the safety vent and cap-down portion.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko with the teachings of Ko to have wherein the vent plate has thickness less than that of the cap-down in order to optimize the rupture pressure of the safety vent.
Regarding Claim 13, Ko discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Ko does not directly disclose wherein the cap-down comprises: A first coupling part in contact with the central part and including a plurality of through-holes; A second coupling part extending outward from the first coupling part and including a coupling groove, in which the extension part is seated; A second bent part extending upward form the second coupling part; and A fixing part extending inward from the second bent part to cover a top surface of the cap-up.
Kim discloses a cap-down structure that comprises a first coupling part in contact with the central part and including a plurality of through-holes; a second coupling part extending outward from the first coupling part and including a coupling groove, in which the extension part is seated; a second bent part extending upward form the second coupling part; and a fixing part extending inward from the second bent part to cover a top surface of the cap-up (cap-down-144, [0047], Fig. 1B shows through holes-144a/144b, extension part is defined as the extending portion from the central part of the cap-down-144 structure). Kim teaches that this structure provides a battery that can prevent cracks due to an external shock ([007]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ko with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the cap-down comprises: A first coupling part in contact with the central part and including a plurality of through-holes; A second coupling part extending outward from the first coupling part and including a coupling groove, in which the extension part is seated; A second bent part extending upward form the second coupling part; and a fixing part extending inward from the second bent part to cover a top surface of the cap-up.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in view of their arguments, see Claims, filed January 21st, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ko in view of Park under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026, regarding the claim 8 rejection has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ko does not disclose the relative rigidity of the vent plate and cap-down.
Ko does not directly disclose wherein vent plate has rigidity less than that of the cap-down.
The examiner notes that rigidity is defined as the inability to be bent or forced out of shape.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, if the vent plate can bend or be forced out of shape easier than the cap-down structure, then Ko discloses the vent plate has rigidity less than the cap-down.
Ko discloses wherein the safety vent is designed to upwardly invert in the case of internal pressure ([0040]), whereas the cap-down is configured to be allow the internal gas to be discharged without being altered ([0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Ko to have wherein vent plate has rigidity less than that of the cap-down and applicant’s arguments are not commensurate ins cope with the claim language.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights