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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
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, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakoshi (JP 2016157570 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Terakoshi discloses a pressure relief device for a battery cell ([0001]; abstract; title), comprising: a pressure relief body (2); and a pressure relief structure (3B) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0021]), comprising a first score groove (31), a second score groove (32), and a third score groove (31) provided on the pressure relief body (2) (see Figs. 2 and 3(A); [0023]), wherein the first score groove (31) and the third score groove (31) are arranged at an interval, the first score groove (31) and the third score groove (31) both intersect with the second score groove (32) (see Modified Figure 3(A) below; [0031]), and the first score groove (31), the second score groove (32), and the third score groove (31) jointly define two pressure relief portions (304) (see Fig. 3(A); [0023]); and the two pressure relief portions (304) are divided by the second score groove (32) (see Fig. 3(A); [0025]); wherein the pressure relief portion (304) is configured to split with the first score groove (31), the second score groove (32), and the third score groove (31) as boundaries when the pressure or temperature inside the battery cell (1) reaches a threshold, so as to relieve the pressure inside the battery cell (1) (see Fig. 8; [0025]-[0026]; [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3(A), Terakoshi
Terakoshi further teaches another embodiment in which a fourth score groove (32) is provided on the pressure relief body (2) in a location intersecting the second score groove (32) (see Modified Figure 33(I) below; [0085]). Terakoshi further discloses that weak sites (X) are provided at locations in which the score grooves (31, 32) intersect each other ([0031]; [0044]; [0075]; see also Figs. 3(A) and 24(A)). Therefore, Terakoshi necessarily discloses that the second score groove (32) has a first weak site (X), a second weak site (X), and a third weak site (X), wherein the second score groove (32) intersects with the first score groove (31) at the first weak site (X), the second score groove (32) intersects the fourth score groove (32) at the second weak site (X), the second score groove (32) intersects the third score groove (31) at the third weak site (X), and in the extending direction of the second score groove (32), the second weak site (X) is located between the first weak site (X) and the third weak site (X) (see Modified Figure 33(I) below). Terakoshi further discloses that the internal pressure acting on the pressure relief body (2) is highest at the center of the pressure relief body (2) ([0017]). Therefore, since the second weak site (X) is located at the center of the pressure relief body (2) (see Modified Figure 33(I) below), it is clear that this embodiment is configured to crack, when the pressure or temperature inside the battery cell reaches a threshold, from the second weak site (X) toward the first weak site (X) and the third weak site (X) along the second score groove (32) to form a first crack, so that the pressure relief bodies (304) are split along the first score groove (31) and the third score groove (31) after the pressure relief body (2) is formed with the first crack.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 33(I), Terakoshi
Terakoshi further discloses that the first score groove (31) has a first end, the third score groove (31) has a second end, and the fourth score groove (32) has a third end, wherein in a width direction of the second score groove (32), the first end, the second end, and the third end are located at the same side of the second score groove (32) (see Modified Figure 33(I) below); and a length from the first end of the first score groove (31) to the first weak site (X) is a first length, a length from the second end of the third score groove (31) to the third weak site (X) is a second length, and a length from the third end of the fourth score groove (32) to the second weak site (X) is a third length, wherein the third length is smaller than the first length and the second length (see Modified Figure 33(I) below).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 33(I), Terakoshi
In the embodiment shown in Fig. 33(I), Terakoshi fails to disclose that the second score groove (32) forms an axis of symmetry of the two pressure relief portions (340). However, Terakoshi teaches another embodiment in which the second score groove (32) intersects with the first (31) and third (31) score grooves at a 90 degree angle such that the second score groove (32) forms an axis of symmetry of the two pressure relief portions (304) (see Fig. 33(L); [0084]-[0085]). Terakoshi further discloses that configurations and structures from one embodiment can be applied to other embodiments with reasonable expectation of success ([0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second score groove (32) in the embodiment shown in Fig. 33(I) to intersect with the first (31) and third (31) score grooves at a 90 degree angle, as taught by Terakoshi in Fig. 33(L), because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to an effective pressure relief device according to Terakoshi. Thus, Terakoshi satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi Further discloses that the fourth score groove (32) includes a portion (34) with a depth greater than a depth of each of the first (31), second (32), and third (31) score grooves (see Figs. 3B, 7C, and 24C; [0030]; [0065]; [0082]; [0085]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Terakoshi further discloses that the depth of the first score groove (31) and the depth of the third score groove (31) are the same as the depth of the second score groove (32) (see Figs. 3B; 7C; 24C; [0027]; [0082]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses that the second score groove (32) and the fourth score groove (32) can include a portion (34) with a depth greater than a depth of each of the first (31) and third (31) score grooves (see Figs. 3B, 7C, and 24C; [0030]; [0067]; [0082]; [0085]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Terakoshi further discloses that a depth of the first score groove (31) is the same as the depth of the third score groove (31) (see Figs. 3B; 7C; 24C; [0027]; [0082]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 11, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. In the embodiment shown in Fig. 33(I), Terakoshi fails to disclose that the first length is the same as the second length, even with the above modification according to Fig. 33(L) in which the second score groove (32) intersects the first (31) and third (31) score grooves at a 90 degree angle in the center of the pressure relief structure (3B). However, Terakoshi further discloses an embodiment in which the ligament portion (305) which separates the first (31) and third (31) score grooves is located at opposite ends of the pressure relief structure (3B) such that the lengths of the first (31) and third (31) score grooves are equal (see Fig. 33(O); [0086]). Thus, combining this location of the ligament portion (305) to the modified Fig. 33(I) set forth above would necessarily result in the first length being the same as the second length. Therefore, since Terakoshi discloses that configurations and structures from one embodiment can be applied to other embodiments with reasonable expectation of success ([0087]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Terakoshi to meet the claimed limitations in claim 11 by combining the structures of Fig. 33(I), 33(L), and 33(O), as set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses that the second weak site (X) is located at the midpoint of the fourth score groove (32) (see Modified Figure 33(I) above), and the length of the fourth score groove (32) is smaller than the length of the first score groove (31) and the length of the third score groove (31) (see Modified Figure 33(I) above). In the embodiment shown in Fig. 33(I), Terakoshi fails to disclose, however, that the first weak site (X) is located at the midpoint of the first score groove (31), and the third weak site (X) is located at the midpoint of the third score groove (31), even with the above modification according to Fig. 33(L) in which the second score groove (32) intersects the first (31) and third (31) score grooves at a 90 degree angle in the center of the pressure relief structure (3B). However, Terakoshi further discloses an embodiment in which the ligament portion (305) which separates the first (31) and third (31) score grooves is located at opposite ends of the pressure relief structure (3B) such that the lengths of the first (31) and third (31) score grooves are equal (see Fig. 33(O); [0086]). Thus, combining this location of the ligament portion (305) to the modified Fig. 33(I) set forth above would necessarily result in the first weak site (X) being located at the midpoint of the first score groove (31) and the third weak site (X) being located being located at the midpoint of the third score groove (31). Therefore, since Terakoshi discloses that configurations and structures from one embodiment can be applied to other embodiments with reasonable expectation of success ([0087]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Terakoshi to meet the claimed limitations in claim 12 by combining the structures of Fig. 33(I), 33(L), and 33(O), as set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Terakoshi further discloses that the length of the first score groove (31) is the same as the length of the third score groove (31) (see Modified Figure 33(I) above).
Regarding claim 14, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses a similar embodiment in which the fourth score groove (32) is arranged to cross with and be perpendicular to the second score groove (32) (see Fig. 33(J); [0085]).
Regarding claim 16, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses that in the extending direction of the second score groove (32), the second score groove (32) has an opposing fourth end and fifth end (see Modified Figure 3(A) below), wherein the linear portion (311) of the first score groove (31) is closer to the fourth end than the linear portion (311) of the third score groove (see Modified Figure 3(A) below), and the linear portion (311) of the third score groove (31) is closer to the fifth end than the linear portion (311) of the first score groove (31) (see Modified Figure 3(A) below); and the fourth end is beyond the arcuate portion (312) of the first score groove (31) in a direction in which the first score groove (31) faces away from the third score groove (31); and the fifth end is beyond the arcuate portion (312) of the third score groove (31) in a direction in which the third score groove (31) faces away from the first score groove (31) (see Modified Figure 3(A) below).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
880
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3(A), Terakoshi
Regarding claim 17, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses that the pressure relief body (2) is provided with a concave portion (301), and the pressure relief structure (3B) is located at a bottom surface of the concave portion (301) (see Figs. 2 and 3(B); [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi further discloses that an accommodating cavity for accommodating an electrode assembly is formed inside the pressure relief body (2), the pressure relief body (2) has a plurality of walls defining the accommodating cavity, and at least one wall is provided with the pressure relief structure (3B) (see Fig. 1; [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 18. Terakoshi further discloses that the pressure relief structure (3B) is provided on an outer surface of the wall (see Fig. 1; [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 18. Terakoshi further discloses that the wall is provided with a concave portion (301) recessed from an outer surface of the wall to an inner surface, and the pressure relief structure (3B) is provided on a bottom surface of the concave portion (301) (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3(B); [0023]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakoshi (JP 2016157570 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Nemoto (JP 5043249 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 15, Terakoshi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Terakoshi fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a wall thickness of the pressure relief body (2) at the first weak site (X) and a wall thickness (X) of the pressure relief body (2) at the third weak site (X) are both greater than a wall thickness of the pressure relief body (2) at the second weak site (X).
Nemoto teaches a similar pressure relief device for a battery which includes a plurality of score grooves (20) that intersect each other (see Figs. 2, 3A, and 3B; [0021]; [0042]). Nemoto further teaches that the depths of the score grooves (20) gradually increase towards the intersection of the grooves (20) at the center of the pressure relief structure (see Fig. 9B; [0027]), thus making a wall thickness of the pressure relief body (16) a minimum at the center of the pressure relief structure (see Figs. 9B and 3A). Nemoto further teaches that configuring the score grooves (20) in this way can help the pressure relief device be formed with finely adjusted operating pressure ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first, second, third, and fourth score grooves disclosed by Terakoshi such that they each have an increasing depth toward the center of the pressure relief structure at the intersection of the second and fourth score grooves, as suggested by Nemoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for finely adjusting the operating pressure of the pressure relief device. Furthermore, since the second weak site (Terakoshi: X) is located at the intersection of the second (Terakoshi: 32) and fourth (Terakoshi: 32) score grooves (see Modified Figure 33(I) above), it would have been obvious for a wall thickness of the pressure relief body (Terakoshi: 2) at the second weak site (Terakoshi: X) to be less than the wall thickness of the pressure relief body (Terakoshi: 2) at both of the first (Terakoshi: X) and third (Terakoshi: X) weak sites. Thus, modified Terakoshi satisfies all of the limitations in claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 02/20/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the Terakoshi reference, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that the presence of the hinge/ligament portions (305) on opposite sides of the second score groove (32) prevents the second score groove (32) from acting as an axis of symmetry of the two pressure relief portions (304). However, examiner notes that Terakoshi does not recognize the ligament portions (305) as being part of the pressure relief portions (304). Indeed, Terakoshi specifically states that the ligament portions (305) are different from the pressure relief portions (304) and are designed to connect the pressure relief portions (304) to the outer periphery curved portion (303) ([0026]; see Figs. 2, 3A, and 3C). Terakoshi further depicts the ligament portions (305) as recessed relative to the pressure relief portions (304) similar to the first and third score grooves (31) (see Modified Figure 3C below), emphasizing the fact that the ligament portions (305) are not part of the pressure relief portions (304) and actually serve to further define the pressure relief portions (304) along with the first (31), second (32), and third (31) score grooves. Thus, based on Terakoshi’s own teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the two pressure relief portions (304) in Fig. 33L as having the exact same shape with the second score groove (32) acting as an axis of symmetry between the two pressure relief portions (304) because they would not have included the shape of the ligament portions (305) in the shape of the pressure relief portions (304). Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Terakoshi reference are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image5.png
798
603
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3C
As such, claims 1, 6-9, and 11-20 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights