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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1522" and "2522" have both been used to designate the sub-notch. “2522” is not included in the specifications. It is understood that FIG. 4 intends to refer to the sub-notch “1522”. It is recommended that FIG. 4 be corrected to include sub-notch designation “1522” over “2522”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20180159100-A1).
Claim 1: Lee ‘100 teaches a secondary battery (100a) [¶ 0061], an electrode assembly [¶ 0061], a case (200a) accommodating the electrode assembly [¶ 0061], and a cap assembly (400a) that is coupled to an upper portion of the case [¶ 0061; FIG. 2]. It further teaches that said cap assembly includes a cap up (410a), a safety vent (420a) below the cap up, and a cap down (440a), and that said cap assembly is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [¶ 0062]. Lee ‘100 teaches the safety vent includes a notch (422a), that the notch may be a set of notches [¶ 0063-0064], and that the depth of the second notch {sub-notch} is smaller than the depth of the first notch {main notch} [¶ 0063].
Claim 5-6: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the sub-notch is at an inner side or an outer side of the main notch, “For example, a notch with shape of a closed curve or an open curve may be further formed on a second concentric circle having the same center as the first concentric circle on which the notch 422a is formed, inside or outside the first concentric circle.” [¶ 0063].
Claim 7: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the main notch and sub-notch being concentric circles [¶ 0063].
Claim 9: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches a central portion at a center of the safety vent [FIG. 2], a first planar portion that extends outwardly from the central portion [FIG. 2], a first bent portion that is bent from the first planar portion and extends upwardly [FIG. 2], a second planar portion that extends outwardly from the first bent portion and is in contact with a lower surface of the cap up [FIG. 2], a second bent portion that is bent from the second planar portion and extends upwardly [FIG. 2], and an extending portion that extends inwardly from the second bent portion and is in contact with an upper surface of the cap up [FIG. 2].
For clarity of the record, see the annotation of FIG. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung (KR-101667966-B1).
Claim 1: Sung ‘966 teaches a secondary battery [¶ 0036], an electrode assembly (300) [¶ 0036], a case (200) accommodating the electrode assembly [¶ 0036], and a cap assembly (100) that is coupled to an upper portion of the case [¶ 0049; FIG. 3]. It teaches that said cap assembly includes a top cap {cap up} (110) [¶ 0041], a safety vent (130) below the cap up [¶ 0041], a current blocking member {cap down} (150) [¶ 0066; FIG. 3], and that said cap assembly is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [¶ 0037]. It teaches a deep groove {main notch} and shallow groove {sub-notch} [¶ 0059; FIGs. 6, 7], that said notch portions are adjacent to one another [FIG. 4], and that the depth of the sub-notch is smaller than the depth of the main notch [¶ 0059].
Claim 3: Sung ‘966 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sung ‘966 further teaches a difference of depth between the deep and shallow groove of 2 to 10 times [¶ 0061] – meaning the shallow notch has a depth of 10%-50% of the main notch.
Claim 8: Sung ‘966 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sung ‘966 further teaches the matters discussed above, a plurality of grooves {notches} circumferentially spaced apart from each other to form a circle [¶ 0055; FIG. 6].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180159100-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Min (CN-115275503-A).
Claim 2: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach a distance between the sub-notch and main notch of 0.5 mm to 2 mm.
Min ‘503 teaches an explosion-proof valve for a lithium battery [¶ 0006], wherein the valve contains a first notch (2), a second notch (4), and an embodiment of the invention where the distance between the two notches is 1.5 mm [¶ 0030]. It further teaches that use of this invention “improves the safety performance of the battery cell and improves the leakage problem of the explosion-proof valve” [¶ 0016].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Lee ‘100 to have the notch distance of Min ‘503 in order to improve the structural strength of the notches and improve the overall reliability of the safety vent so as to prevent the leakage of the battery cells, as suggested by Min.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180159100-A1).
Claim 4: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not explicitly teach a main notch distance of 8 mm to 12 mm from the central portion of the safety vent. However, case law has held that a change in proportionality does not make a claim patentably distinguishable from the prior Art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the Art to scale up Lee ‘100 to have a main notch distance from the central portion of the safety vent of 8-12 mm prior to the filing date because changes in proportionality have been held to be obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180159100-A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US-20090297927-A1).
Claim 10: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach the notches being on the first planar portion.
Kim ‘927 teaches a secondary battery (1) [¶ 0033], an electrode assembly (10) [¶ 0033], and further teaches a similar safety vent for the cap of a secondary battery [¶ 0046; FIGs. 1A, 1B].
Kim ‘927 further teaches a plurality of notches (739) on the safety vent, a central portion at a center of the safety vent [FIG. 2A], a first planar portion that extends outwardly from the central portion [FIG. 2A], a first bent portion that is bent from the first planar portion and extends upwardly [FIG. 2A], and a second planar portion that extends outwardly from the first bent portion [FIG. 2A]. It further teaches the plurality of notches (739b) [FIG. 6B] are on the first planar portion adjacent to the first bent portion [FIG. 2A].
For the clarity of the record, an annotation of FIG. 2A is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
557
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both sets of notches in Lee ‘100 and Kim ‘927 serve the same function of improving predictability of breakage of the safety vent to allow the escape of pressurized gases. The location of the notches being on the first planar portion vs. the second planar portion does not impact the effect of the invention, meaning the substitution of these aspects yields predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Lee ‘100 to have the notch placement of Kim ‘927 prior to the filing date because it would be a modification for the same intended purpose. Modification to Art for the same intended purpose has been held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180159100-A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Sung (KR-101667966-B1).
Claim 3: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach a depth of the sub-notch being 10%-90% of the main notch.
Sung ‘966 teaches a secondary battery [¶ 0036], an electrode assembly (300) [¶ 0036], a case accommodating the electrode assembly (200) [¶ 0036], and a cap assembly (100) that is coupled to an upper portion of the case [¶ 0049; FIG. 3]. It further teaches that said cap assembly includes a cap up (110), a safety vent (130) below the cap up, and a cap down (150), and that said cap assembly is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [¶ 0037].
Sung ‘966 further teaches a difference of depth between the deeper and shallow groove of 2 to 10 times [¶ 0061] – meaning the shallow notch has a depth of 10%-50% of the main notch – and that having this groove arrangement allows for rapid deformation to rapidly discharge built up gas pressure and prevent an explosion [¶ 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Lee ‘100 to have the notch depth ratio of Sung ‘966 to more easily deform the safety vent to vent gas to prevent an explosion, as suggested by Sung.
Claim 8: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the notch may have a shape of a closed curve or an open curve [¶ 0063].
Lee ‘100 does not explicitly teach a plurality of notches circumferentially spaced apart from each other to form a circle.
Sung ‘966 teaches the matters discussed above, a plurality of grooves {notches} circumferentially spaced apart from each other to form a circle [¶ 0055; FIG. 6], and that having this groove arrangement allows for rapid deformation to rapidly discharge built up gas pressure and prevent an explosion [¶ 0027-0028].
Claim 11: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach the depth of the main notch being 53% to 77% of the thickness of the first planar portion.
Sung ‘966 teaches a secondary battery [¶ 0036], an electrode assembly (300) [¶ 0036], a case accommodating the electrode assembly (200) [¶ 0036], and a cap assembly (100) that is coupled to an upper portion of the case [¶ 0049; FIG. 3]. It further teaches that said cap assembly includes a cap up (110), a safety vent (130) below the cap up, and a cap down (150), and that said cap assembly is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [¶ 0037].
Sung ‘966 further teaches the first notch having a depth of 1% to 90% of the thickness of the first planar portion [¶ 0060] and that having the groove arrangement of the disclosure allows for rapid deformation to rapidly discharge built up gas pressure and prevent an explosion [¶ 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Lee ‘100 to have the notch depth of Sung ‘966 for explosion prevention, as suggested by Sung. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to have chosen a main notch depth of 53-77% of the thickness of the first planar portion because said bounds are within the operative range of 1-90% taught by Sung ‘966. It has been held that overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 12: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach the depth of the sub-notch being 5% to 70% of the thickness of the first planar portion.
Sung ‘966 teaches the first notch having a depth of 1% to 90% of the thickness of the first planar portion [¶ 0060], that the main notch is 2 to 10 times deeper than the sub-notch [¶ 0061]. Therefore, Sung ‘966 teaches a depth of the sub-notch being between 0.1% and 45% the thickness of the first planar portion. Sung ‘966 further teaches that having the groove arrangement of the disclosure allows for rapid deformation to rapidly discharge built up gas pressure and prevent an explosion [¶ 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Lee ‘100 to have the notch depth of Sung ‘966 for explosion prevention, as suggested by Sung. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to have chosen a main notch depth of 5-70% of the thickness of the first planar portion because said bounds are within the operative range of 0.1-45% taught by Sung ‘966. It has been held that overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180159100-A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Sugimoto (US-20230090756-A1).
Claim 13: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
Lee ‘100 does not teach the thickness of the central portion of the safety vent being greater than the thickness of the first planar portion of said safety vent.
Sugimoto ‘756 teaches a cylindrical battery (10) and a rupture disk {safety vent} (33) [¶ 0021]. It further teaches the thickness of the central portion (33D) is greater than the thickness of the first planar portion of the safety vent [¶ 0029; FIG. 2] and that the invention may help prevent the rupture disk from dislodging during welding [¶ 0005-0006].
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Lee ‘100 to have the varying thickness of the safety vent to prevent the safety vent from being dislodged during the welding process in assembly, as suggested by Sugimoto.
Claim 14: Lee ‘100 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. It further teaches a first region of the cap down (440a) being electrically connected to the central portion of the safety vent [FIG. 2] and a second region that extends outwardly from the first region that is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [FIG. 2]. It further teaches that the indented portion of the safety vent (421a) is joined to the center portion of the Current Interrupting Device/CID (440a) [¶ 0063], that the CID has a notch (443a), and that when pressure builds up the center portion of the CID (444a) breaks along its notch (443a) and is pushed upwards together with the central portion of the safety vent (420a) [¶ 0063].
Lee ‘100 does not teach the thickness of the first region being smaller than the thickness of the second region.
Sugimoto ‘756 teaches a metal plate {cap down} (31) with a thin central part (31B) [¶ 0027; FIG. 2], that the metal plate is electrically connected to the electrode assembly [¶ 0021], that the central part of the rupture disk {safety vent} (33D) is connected by welding or the like to the thin central part of the metal plate (31B) [¶ 0029], and that when pressure builds up the thin central part of the metal plate (31B) is disconnected from the thicker part of the metal plate [¶ 0027].
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to substitute the features of the safety vent and cap down of Lee ‘100 with the rupture disk {safety vent} and metal plate {cap down} of Sugimoto ‘756 to obtain the present disclosure prior to the filing date because both sets perform the same function to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (ET).
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights