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 § 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 1-9 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between the “recessed portion” and “protrusion”.
It is unclear from the claim language where the vent hole is located.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen (US 8,668,998 B2) in view of CN 217589305 U (to Fang) – translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 1, Guen teaches a secondary battery (Figure 1C) comprising: a case (140) having a space therein; an electrode assembly (110) accommodated in the space in the case (140); and a cap plate (150) coupled to and sealing the case (140), the cap plate (150) having a recessed portion (152) and a vent hole (155) in the recessed portion (152) (as illustrated).
Guen teaches wherein the cap plate (150) comprises a protrusion (152b) formed by protruding at least one region of the cap plate (150) (as illustrated), wherein a vent plate (thinnest portion of bottom portion (152a)) sealing the vent hole (155), and wherein a height of the protrusion (152b) is greater than a thickness of the vent plate (thinnest portion of bottom portion (152a)) and less than or equal to a thickness of the cap plate (151) (as illustrated). Guen teaches wherein the vent plate/(thinnest portion of bottom portion (152a)) is disposed on the protrusion (152b); but fails to teach wherein the vent plate/(thinnest portion of bottom portion (152a)) includes a notch.
Fang teaches a battery case comprising a cap plate (Figure 1, 1), the cap plate (1) comprising a protrusion/recess (111/112) wherein a vent (11) is positioned and is covered by a vent plate (2) and wherein the vent plate (2) includes a notch (20) (see Figures 1-3) in order to thereby improve the pressure relief efficiency, avoid the explosion-proof valve structure failure, and prolong the service life of the battery (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the vent plate of Guen include a notch, as taught by Fang, in order to thereby improve the pressure relief efficiency, avoid the explosion-proof valve structure failure, and prolong the service life of the battery.
With respect to claim 3, Guen teaches wherein a thickness of the cap plate (150) at the recessed portion (152) is greater than or equal to 0.5 times the thickness of the cap plate (150) and is less than or equal to the thickness of the cap plate (150) (as illustrated in Figure 1C).
With respect to claim 4, Guen teaches wherein a thickness of the cap plate (150) where the vent hole (155) starts in the recessed portion (152) is greater than or equal to 0.5 times the thickness of the cap plate (150) and is less than or equal to the thickness of the cap plate (150) (as illustrated in Figure 1C).
With respect to claim 5, Guen teaches wherein a depth at which the recessed portion (152) protrudes from a lower portion (152) of the cap plate (150) is greater than or equal to a thickness of the cap plate (150) at the recessed portion (152) (as illustrated in Figure 1C).
With respect to claim 6, Guen teaches wherein a depth at which the recessed portion (152) protrudes from a lower portion (152) of the cap plate (150) is greater than or equal to a thickness of the cap plate (150) where the vent hole starts in the recessed portion (152) (as illustrated in Figure 1C).
With respect to claim 9, Guen teaches an electrode terminal (122 or 132) inserted into a terminal opening in the cap plate (151) (as illustrated), and wherein a bottom surface of the protrusion (152b) and the electrode terminal (120 or 130) overlap horizontally (as illustrated in Figure 1C).
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen (US 8,668,998 B2) in view of CN 217589305 U (to Fang), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 102412028 B1 (hereinafter KR’028) – translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 2, Guen discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein a depth at which the recessed portion (152) protrudes from a lower portion (152) of the cap plate (150) is greater than or equal to 0.2 times of a thickness of the cap plate (150); however, the depth is not less than or equal to the thickness of the cap plate (150) as recited in the claim (as illustrated), but it is rather greater. KR’028 teaches a battery case (Figure 2, 15) comprising a cap plate (20), wherein the cap plate (20) comprises a recess portion (25), wherein the depth thereof is less than or equal to the thickness of the cap plate (20) (as illustrated) in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose the desired depth of the recess in Guen, such that the depth is less than or equal to the thickness of the cap plate, as taught by KR’028, in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Furthermore, change in size/proportion or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV A (size/proportion) MPEP 2144.04 IV B (Shape).
With respect to claim 7, Guen discloses all claim limitations as set forth above, but fails to teach wherein the height of the protrusion (152b) (Figure 1C) is less than a distance between the protrusion (152b) and the electrode assembly (110). KR’028 teaches a battery case (Figure 2, 15) comprising a cap plate (20), wherein the cap plate (20) comprises a protrusion/recess portion (25), wherein the height of the protrusion/recess (25) is less than a distance between the protrusion/recess (25) and the electrode assembly (10) (as illustrated) in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose the desired height of the protrusion in Guen, such that the height of the protrusion (152b) (Figure 1C) is less than a distance between the protrusion (152b) and the electrode assembly (110), as taught by KR’028, in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Furthermore, change in size/proportion or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV A (size/proportion) MPEP 2144.04 IV B (Shape).
With respect to claim 8, Guen discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including an electrode terminal (120 or 130) inserted into a terminal opening in the cap plate (151) (as illustrated); Guen, however, fails to teach wherein a distance between the protrusion (152b) and the electrode terminal (120 or 130) is greater than a long width of the protrusion (152b) (Figure 1A). KR’028 teaches a battery case (Figure 2, 15) comprising a cap plate (20), wherein the cap plate (20) comprises a protrusion/recess portion (25), wherein a distance between the protrusion/recess (25) and the electrode terminal (22) is greater than a long width of the protrusion/recess (25) (as illustrated) in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose the desired dimensions of the protrusion in Guen, such that the distance between the protrusion (152b) and the electrode terminal (120 or 130) is greater than a long width of the protrusion (152b), as taught by KR’028, in order to accommodate design needs and space limitations. Furthermore, change in size/proportion or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV A (size/proportion) MPEP 2144.04 IV B (Shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/16/2025 with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 1/23/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725