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 Amendment and Claim Status
The preliminary amendment filed 26 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 19 are canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are pending in the application.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 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 1 recites the limitation “in a circumferential direction of the groove, the first chamfer face has a radius gradually increasing from two ends to the middle”. The claim limitation is unclear because the element “radius” could have several meanings, e.g. radius could be referring to the radius of curvature of the chamfer face as it is provided along the groove in the x-y plane (see FIG. 5), which appears to be the circumferential direction of the groove, the radius of curvature of the actual “chamfering” of the chamfer face in the x-z plane, or another meaning. For the purposes of this Office Action, the second meaning above is interpreted as the meaning of “radius”, i.e. that radius refers to the radius of curvature of the actual chamfer surface in the x-z plane as shown in FIG. 5, which appears to be supported by the Specification (e.g. [0008]–[0017]) and FIG. 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the phrasing “and/or”, but it is unclear which claim elements the “and/or” is encompassing and rendering optional. Put another way, of these elements of Claim 4:
(1) wherein in the circumferential direction of the groove, two ends of the second chamfer face are connected to the first chamfer faces, and the second chamfer face has a radius gradually decreasing from the two ends to the middle,
(2) the first chamfer face is connected to the second chamfer face at a first connection position, and the radius of the first chamfer face at the first connection position is equal to that of the second chamfer face at the first connection position, and
(3) the maximum radius of the second chamfer face is R2, which satisfies: 0.1 mm ≤ R2 ≤ 0.5 mm,
it is unclear which, if any of (1), (2), and (3) above are required to be present in Claim 4, and which the “and/or” applies to, i.e. are all of (1), (2), and (3) part of the and/or phrasing and therefore only one of them need be present to satisfy Claim 4, or is (1) required and the and/or applies only to (2) and (3). For the purposes of this Office Action, it is assumed that the limitation (1) is required and the “and/or” phrasing applies to the limitations (2) and (3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 15 also recite the phrasing “and/or” and are therefore also unclear for the same reasons described above for Claim 4. For the purposes of this Office Action, the same assumptions have been made for these claims, i.e. the first limitation recited in each claim has been interpreted as being required for the claim, and the second and third limitations have been interpreted as having the “and/or” phrasing applied to them. Note that for Claim 15, the limitation “the cap body is provided with an exhaust passage” has been interpreted as applying to both of the second and third limitations, with the “and/or” phrasing therefore applying such that the and/or limitations are: (2) the exhaust passage is in communication with the inside of the groove and the outside of the cap body”, and (3) the exhaust passage is an exhaust groove provided in the cap body, the exhaust groove penetrating the first surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected as they depend upon Claim 1 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above. Furthermore, several of these claims (e.g. Claims 3, 6, 7, and 21) also include limitations which reference the unclear “radius” claim element. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2011/175937 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2012/0088128 A1), as evidenced by Li (Li, James; First Mold; Chamfers In Product Design – Product Design Series, https://firstmold.com/tips/fillets-and-chamfers/, published 28 May 2024) and Gong et al. (US 2018/0366716 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 12, Yoshida discloses an end cap (see sealing body 1, [0025], FIG. 1), comprising:
a cap body (see sealing plate 13, [0026], FIG. 2 and 3a) having a first surface (see outer surface of the sealing plate 13 flush with imaginary surface 18a, [0028], FIG. 3b and 3c); and
a groove (see groove formed by formation of valve body 6 in the open hole 17 below the imaginary surface 18a, [0028], 3b and 3c) provided in the cap body to form a pressure relief zone in a region of the cap body where the groove is provided ([0025] discloses that the purpose of valve body 6 is to release gas inside the battery in the case of an abnormal increase in internal pressure), the groove being recessed from the first surface in a thickness direction of the cap body (FIG. 3b and 3c) (Claim 1);
wherein the cap body is provided with a pressure relief indentation (see crushing groove 6a, [0028], FIG. 3) located in the pressure relief zone (FIG. 3); and
the pressure relief indentation is a closed groove extending along an end-to-end closed trajectory ([0028], FIG. 3) (Claim 12).
Yoshida discloses groove side faces (see point of meeting between chamfered portion 20 and base of valve body 6, FIG. 3b and 3c; note that as [0017] discloses that the radius of curvature of the chamfered portion 20 can be 0.5t to 5, this point of meeting can constitute a vertical face, i.e. constitute a groove face) connected to the first surface via chamfer faces (see chamfered portion 20, [0017], [0051], FIG. 3), wherein the groove side faces and chamfer faces are present around the entirety of the groove ([0019], FIG. 3). However, Yoshida discloses a track-shaped groove ([0052], FIG. 3) and therefore does not disclose the groove side faces of the groove comprising corner faces at corners of the groove; wherein each corner face is connected to the first surface via a first chamfer face (Claim 1), wherein the groove side faces further comprise a first side face connected to the corner face, the first side face being connected to the first surface via a second chamfer face (Claim 3), wherein in the circumferential direction of the groove, two ends of the second chamfer face are connected to the first chamfer faces (Claim 4), wherein the groove side faces further comprise a second side face, the second side face and the first side face are located in different orientations of the groove, the second side face is connected to the first side face via the corner face, and the second side face is connected to the first surface via a third chamfer face (Claim 6), wherein in the circumferential direction of the groove, two ends of the third chamfer face are connected to the first chamfer faces (Claim 7), nor wherein the groove side faces comprise two first side faces and two second side faces, the two first side faces are arranged opposite each other in a first direction, and the two second side faces are arranged opposite each other in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (Claim 9).
Matsuura teaches an end cap (see covering body 22, [0050], FIG. 1 and 3), comprising: a cap body having a first surface (see top surface of covering body 22 shown in e.g. FIG. 1 and 3); and a groove (see safety valve 40, [0051], FIG. 1 and 3) provided in the cap body to form a pressure relief zone in a region of the cap body where the groove is provided ([0051]). Matsuura teaches that the groove can be formed in typical shapes including a racetrack shape ([0009]), an elliptical shape ([0009], [0075], FIG. 11), an oval shape ([0009], [0057], FIG. 4), or a long rounded rectangular shape ([0009], [0072], FIG. 10), wherein the long rounded rectangular shape comprises groove side faces comprising corner faces (see curved outer edges 145 at the four corner portions, [0072], FIG. 10) at corners of the groove, two first side faces (see straight outer edge portions 144A that extend in the longer direction, [0072], FIG. 10) connected to the corner faces, and two second side faces (see straight outer edge portions 144B that extend in the shorter direction, [0072], FIG. 10) located in different orientations of the groove from the two first side faces, and being connected to the first side faces via the corner faces (FIG. 10), the two first side faces arranged opposite each other in a first direction, and the two second side faces are arranged opposite each other in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (FIG. 10).
Yoshida and Matsuura are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of pressure relief mechanisms for batteries. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As taught by Matsuura, racetrack, elliptical, oval, and long rounded rectangular are all known shapes for the groove. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the track-shaped groove of Yoshida for the long rounded rectangular-shaped groove of Matsuura, to obtain the predictable result of formation of a functional pressure relief zone in the region of the cap body where the groove is provided. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such a substitution will necessarily result in the end cap of modified Yoshida comprising: groove side faces comprising corner faces at corners of the groove, wherein each corner face is connected to the first surface via a first chamfer face; two first side faces connected to the corner faces, the first side faces being connected to the first surface via second chamfer faces, wherein in the circumferential direction of the groove, the two ends of each second chamfer face are connected to first chamfer faces; and two second side faces, the two second side faces and the two first side faces located in different orientations of the groove, the second side faces being connected to the first side faces via the corners faces, the second side faces being connected to the first surface via third chamfer faces, wherein in the circumferential direction of the groove, two ends of each of the third chamfer faces are connected to first chamfer faces, the two first side faces are arranged opposite each other in a first direction, the two second side faces are arranged opposite each other in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (note that the connections of the chamfer faces as described above will necessarily be present because Yoshida discloses, as stated previously, that that the chamfer faces are present around the entirety of the groove).
Modified Yoshida further does not disclose wherein in a circumferential direction of the groove, the first chamfer face has a radius gradually increasing from two ends to the middle (Claim 1), wherein the maximum radius of the second chamfer face is smaller than that of the first chamfer face (Claim 3), the second chamfer face has a radius gradually decreasing from the two ends to the middle (Claim 4), wherein the maximum radius of the third chamfer face is smaller than that of the first chamfer face (Claim 6), nor wherein the third chamfer face has a radius gradually decreasing from the two ends to the middle (Claim 7).
However, Yoshida discloses ([0011]) that chamfer faces serve to lessen the impact transmitted to the groove in the case of a drop or the like, thus preventing malfunction of the valve body such as fracture and leakage, and ([0018]) that chamfer faces should particularly be applied to portions of the groove where stress is most concentrated. It is furthermore well-known in the field of corner modification that increasing radius of the chamfer decreases the effective stress concentration factor, as evidenced by Li (p. 11 ¶ “Fatigue failure is caused…”; note that Li refers to smoothly curved chamfers as “fillets”, which are analogous in the present instance to the chamfers of Yoshida). Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of pressure relief for batteries that stress on a pressure relief indentation is more easily concentrated in regions with greatest curvature, as evidenced by Gong ([0058]). Thus for the end cap of modified Yoshida, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the portions of the groove where stress is most easily concentrated will be the portions of the pressure relief indentation which have the greatest curvature (which, due to the fact that the curvature of the pressure relief indentation mimics the curvature of the groove faces of modified Yoshida as shown in e.g. Yoshida FIG. 3, will correspond to the groove faces which have the greatest curvature).
A person of ordinary skill in the art will therefore understand, given the above, that the curvature of a groove face in the circumferential direction at any given point dictates the stress concentration at that point on the groove, and that such stress concentration can be alleviated by increasing the radius of the corresponding chamfer face at that point. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that for the end cap of modified Yoshida, the curvature of each corner face will increase from the two ends to the middle in the circumferential direction, the curvature of each first side face and second side face will decrease from the two ends to the middle in the circumferential direction, and the maximum curvatures of the first side face and the second side face will be less than the maximum curvature of the corner faces.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of modified Yoshida such that the radius of the chamfer face at each point in the circumferential direction of the groove has a magnitude that is proportional to the curvature of the groove side face at that given point, such that in a circumferential direction of the groove, the first chamfer face has a radius gradually increasing from two ends to the middle, the maximum radius of the second chamfer face is smaller than that of the first chamfer face, the second chamfer face has a radius gradually decreasing from the two ends to the middle, wherein the maximum radius of the third chamfer face is smaller than that of the first chamfer face, and wherein the third chamfer face has a radius gradually decreasing from the two ends to the middle, as doing so will serve to alleviate stress concentration via chamfering in the curved areas of the groove where stress is most easily concentrated, and thus malfunction of the groove due to impact from a drop or the like can be better prevented.
Regarding the limitations: the first chamfer face is connected to the second chamfer face at a first connection position, and the radius of the first chamfer face at the first connection position is equal to that of the second chamfer face at the first connection position (Claim 4) and the first chamfer face is connected to the third chamfer face at a second connection position, and the radius of the first chamfer face at the second connection position is equal to that of the third chamfer face at the second connection position (Claim 7), because the groove of modified Yoshida is in the shape of a long rounded rectangle, one of ordinary skill will understand that the curvature of the groove side faces and the corresponding radius of the chamfer faces changes in a smooth and continuous manner such that the radii of adjacent chamfer faces will necessarily be equal at any connection position.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Yoshida discloses the end cap of Claim 1. Modified Yoshida further discloses a battery cell (see sealed battery, Yoshida [0024], FIG. 1), comprising:
a housing (see outer can 2, Yoshida [0025], FIG. 1) provided with an opening (see opening, Yoshida [0025]);
an end cap of Claim 1, wherein the cap body closes the opening (Yoshida [0025], FIG. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Yoshida discloses the end cap of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum radius of the first chamfer face is R1, which satisfies: 0.5 mm ≤ R1 ≤ 2 mm.
However, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, increasing the radius of a chamfer face decreases the effective stress concentration factor, as evidenced by Li (p. 11 ¶ “Fatigue failure is caused…”; note that Li refers to smoothly curved chamfers as “fillets”, which are analogous in the present instance to the chamfers of Yoshida).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the radius of a chamfer face is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the stress concentration factor, as evidenced by Li, thus making the radius of a chamfer face a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of modified Yoshida such that the maximum radius of the first chamfer face is R1 wherein 0.5 mm ≤ R1 ≤ 2 mm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of stress concentration factor for the first chamfer face.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2011/175937 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2012/0088128 A1), as evidenced by Li (Li, James; First Mold; Chamfers In Product Design – Product Design Series, https://firstmold.com/tips/fillets-and-chamfers/, published 28 May 2024) and Gong et al. (US 2018/0366716 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, as further evidenced by Wang (CN 215911484 U; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yoshida discloses the end cap of Claim 9. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 9 above, the groove of modified Yoshida is in the shape of a long rounded rectangle wherein the first side faces are longer than the second side faces (Matsuura [0072], FIG. 10), and therefore modified Yoshida discloses wherein a distance between the first two first side faces in the first direction is a first distance, and a distance between the two second side faces in the second direction is a second distance, the first distance being less than the second distance. However, modified Yoshida does not disclose wherein the first direction is a length direction of the cap body, and the second direction is a width direction of the cap body, instead disclosing that the first direction is a width direction of the cap body, and the second direction is a length direction of the cap body (Yoshida FIG. 1).
However, utilizing a groove provided in the cap body to form a pressure relief zone in a region of the cap body where the groove is provided which has the alternative configuration, i.e. the longer first side faces are arranged opposite each other in a first direction which is a length direction of the cap body, and the shorter second sides are arranged opposite each other in a second direction which is a width direction of the cap body, is a well-known practice in the field of pressure relief mechanisms for batteries, as evidenced by Wang (see explosion-proof valve 150 included in top cover 100, [n0063], FIG. 1). Furthermore, a rearrangement of parts is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C, 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)). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of modified Yoshida such that the first direction is a length direction of the cap body, and the second direction is a width direction of the cap body, as a rearrangement of parts is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2011/175937 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2012/0088128 A1), as evidenced by Li (Li, James; First Mold; Chamfers In Product Design – Product Design Series, https://firstmold.com/tips/fillets-and-chamfers/, published 28 May 2024) and Gong et al. (US 2018/0366716 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Shi et al. (EP 3694013 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yoshida discloses the end cap of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the end cap is further comprising a protective member, wherein the protective member is connected to the cap body and covers the groove.
Shi teaches an end cap comprising: a cap body (see cap assembly 3, [0022], FIG. 1 and 4) having a first surface (see surface of cap plate 31, [0026], FIG. 1 and 4); and a groove provided in the cap body (see combination of through-hole 311, [0031], FIG. 5, and vent piece 32, [0026], FIG. 4 and 5) to form a pressure relief zone in a region of the cap body where the groove is provided ([0033]), the groove being recessed from the first surface in a thickness direction of the cap body (FIG. 5). Shi further teaches a protective member (see protecting piece 35, [0050], FIG. 1, 4, and 5), wherein the protective member is connected to the cap body and covers the groove ([0050], FIG. 1, 4, and 5). Shi teaches ([0050]) that the protective member prevents foreign materials from damaging the groove.
Shi is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of pressure relief mechanisms for batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of modified Yoshida such that it further comprises a protective member, wherein the protective member is connected to the cap body and covers the groove, as taught by Shi, for the purpose of preventing foreign materials from damaging the groove.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2011/175937 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2012/0088128 A1), as evidenced by Li (Li, James; First Mold; Chamfers In Product Design – Product Design Series, https://firstmold.com/tips/fillets-and-chamfers/, published 28 May 2024) and Gong et al. (US 2018/0366716 A1) further in view of Shi et al. (EP 3694013 A1) as applied to Claim 14 above, further in view of Koo et al. (US 2020/0227715 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yoshida discloses the end cap of Claim 14. Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the protective member is connected to the first surface (Shi FIG. 5), but does not disclose wherein the cap body is provided with an exhaust passage which is in communication with the inside of the groove and the outside of the cap body; and/or
the exhaust passage is an exhaust groove provided in the cap body, the exhaust groove penetrating the first surface.
Koo teaches an end cap (see cap assembly 180, [0030], FIG. 1) comprising: a cap body (see cap plate 181, [0045], FIG. 1 and 2) having a first surface (see top surface of cap plate, FIG. 1 and 2); and a groove provided in the cap body (see combination of safety vent 182, [0067], FIG. 1 and 2, and vent hole 181a, [0066], FIG. 2) to form a pressure relief zone in a region of the cap body where the groove is provided ([0067]), the groove being recessed from the first surface in a thickness direction of the cap body (FIG. 2). Koo further teaches wherein the cap body is provided with an exhaust passage (see pressure equalization structure 210, [0030], FIG. 1–3) which is an exhaust groove provided in the cap body ([0065], FIG. 1–3; note that the exhaust passage is a narrow channel made in the cap body, i.e. a groove), the exhaust groove penetrating the first surface ([0065], [0077], FIG. 1–3). Koo teaches ([0077]) that the exhaust groove allows the internal and external pressure of the battery case to be in an equalized state at all times.
Koo is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of pressure relief mechanisms for batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of modified Yoshida such that the cap body is provided with an exhaust passage which is an exhaust groove provided in the cap body, the exhaust groove penetrating the first surface, as taught by Koo, for the purpose of ensuring that the internal and external pressure of the battery case can be in an equalized state at all times.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2011/175937 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2012/0088128 A1), as evidenced by Li (Li, James; First Mold; Chamfers In Product Design – Product Design Series, https://firstmold.com/tips/fillets-and-chamfers/, published 28 May 2024) and Gong et al. (US 2018/0366716 A1) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 114006124 A; see attached machine translation), herein referred to as Li ‘124.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yoshida discloses the battery cell of Claim 17, but does not disclose a battery, comprising:
a case; and
a battery cell of Claim 17, wherein the battery cell is received in the case;
wherein the case has a bottom wall, and the end cap is arranged on the side of the battery cell facing the bottom wall.
Li ‘124 teaches a battery (see power battery, [n0035], FIG. 1) comprising a battery cell (see battery cell 1, [n0035], FIG. 1) comprising an end cap (see top of battery cell 1, [n0037]) comprising a pressure relief zone (see pressure relief valve, [n0035], [n0037]), wherein the battery cell is received in a case (see battery box, [n0035], FIG. 1), wherein the case has a bottom wall (see bottom plate 31, [n0035], FIG. 1) that includes a pressure relief channel (see pressure relief channels, [n0035], FIG. 1 and 2), and the end cap is arranged on the side of the battery cell facing the bottom wall ([n0035]–[n0037], FIG. 1 and 2). Li ‘124 teaches ([n0034]) that situating the battery cells such that the end caps comprising the pressure relief zone are arranged to face the bottom wall of the case allows for timely discharge of harmful substances from the battery cell during thermal runaway to the outside, and prevents the harmful substances from spreading to the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Li ‘124 is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of pressure relief mechanisms for batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell of modified Yoshida such that it is comprised in a battery, comprising a case, wherein the battery cell is received in the case; wherein the case has a bottom wall, and the end cap is arranged on the side of the battery cell facing the bottom wall, as taught by Li ‘124, for the purpose of ensuring timely discharge of harmful substances from the battery cell during thermal runaway to the outside, and preventing the harmful substances from spreading to the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Yoshida discloses the battery of Claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose a power consuming device comprising the battery of Claim 18. However, it is a well-known practice in the field of batteries to include them in a power consuming device, such as a vehicle, in order to power the device, as evidenced by Li ‘124 ([n0002]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the battery of modified Yoshida in a power consuming device such as a vehicle in order to power it, as this is a well-known practice in the field of batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. 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, 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725