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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges replacement sheet for Figs. 2-3, amended Claims 1, 5, 12, and 13, and cancelled Claims 2-3 and 14 in the response filed on 6/3/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Ko and Kim is improper. Ko teaches position the welded region inward from an end portion, primarily for sealing considerations. In contrast, Kim teaches locating the welded portion in a configuration effectively associated with the case end region, emphasizing structural fixation. These references adopt fundamentally different design approaches regarding the positional relationship between the welded area and the case end.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Ko and Kim both teaches a welded area formed by welding the cap-up and the safety vent to each other. Note that while Kim do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kim is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the welded area includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket, wherein the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/3/2026. These drawings are not entered because they contain new matter.
It appears to show a separation space between the entire upper surface of the welded area (155) and the gasket (190). That is, Fig. 3 appears to show that the gasket is notched or a portion of the gasket is removed to produce a separation space between the entire upper surface of the welded area (155) and gasket (190). However, Applicant’s specification does not necessarily disclose such feature.
The original filed drawings and the replacement drawing received on 6/3/2026 are also objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant has amended the claim set to recite the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket in Claim 1. The drawings does not clearly show or annotate where the separation space is located. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the instant feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the negative limitation of a protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket. Negative limitation(s) in the claim(s) must have explicit support in the specification to satisfy the description requirement of 35 USC 112, In re Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393. Also please see MPEP 2173.05(i) which states, "The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion."
According to paragraph [0047] in Applicant’s as-filed Specification, it discloses that the welded area 155 is formed by melting parts of the safety vent 150 and the cap-up 140 and protrudes (rises) upward, a separation space exists between the welded area 155 and the gasket 190. The Examiner suggests the to use explicit/positively recited language (if possible) from Applicant’s Specification in the claims as an option to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”). Please note that US Pub. No. 20200295319 is the English language equivalent to WO ‘160 and all citations will refer to the US publication.
With regards to Claims 1, 12, and 13, Ko et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (110), a case (120) in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, and a cap assembly (130) which is coupled to a top of the case and comprises a cap-up (140), a safety vent (150) provided under the cap-up and having a vent extension portion (153) extending to a top of the cap-up so as to cover an edge of the cap-up, and a cap-down (170) provided under the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (110). Ko et al. further teaches the vent extension portion (153) has a welded area (155) formed by welding the cap-up and the safety vent to each other, and the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward the center of the secondary battery (Abstract, Figs. 1-3, [0035], [0036], [0038], [0040], and [0046]).
As annotated by the Examiner below, Fig. 3 of Ko et al. teaches a welded area (155) comprising a concavity. To form such structure, the surrounding regions must protrude relative to the concave portion. Thus, the Examiner is taking the position that Ko et al. teaches the welded area includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner recognizes that Fig. 2 of Ko et al. illustrates the gasket (190) being in contact with welded area. However, Ko et al. broadly teaches the gasket is installed in the top opening of the case (120), wherein the gasket is tightly adhered to regions between the outer peripheral edges of the cap-up (140) and the safety vent (150) and the top opening of the case (120). The gasket may be formed to cover the welding regions (155) between the safety vent 150 and the cap-up 140. The gasket may be made of a resin material [0044]. That is, the gasket of Ko et al. is a separate resinous entity that is inserted/installed. An installed gasket will create a void/gap/separation between the concave of the welded area and the gasket itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Ko et al. will use an already produced gasket to lower manufacturing costs, reduce part complexity, etc. Thus, Ko et al. teaches the welded area includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket, and wherein the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket.
With regards to Claim 4, Ko et al. teaches the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the vent extension portion in an outward direction (Figs. 1-3).
With regards to Claim 5, Ko et al. teaches a gasket (190) is located between the welded area and the end of the case (Figs. 1-2, [0044], and [0051]).
With regards to Claims 6 and 7, Ko et al. teaches the welded area is in arch or arc shape (Figs. 4-5 and [0048]). While Ko et al. does not explicitly teach the welded area is in a circle shape, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the welded area to a circle shape, to form a complete welding seal between the cap-up and the safety vent to increase coupling/adhesion strength [0049]. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
With regards to Claim 8, Ko et al. teaches the case includes a side plate (121) and a bottom plate (122) sealing a lower portion of the side plate, and the end of the case is an uppermost part of the side plate (Fig. 1 and [0035]).
With regards to Claim 9, Ko et al. teaches the end of the case is bent to form a crimping part (124) that fixes the cap assembly (Figs. 1-2 and [0035]).
With regards to Claim 10, Ko et al. recognizes the importance of the placement of the welded area. Specifically, Ko et al. teaches a distance L1 between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion is greater than 1% of a length of L2 of the vent extension portion, wherein the distance L1 may be formed to be at least 0.03 mm or greater (Fig. 3, [0046], and [0051]).
While Figs. 1-2 of Ko et al. appear to demonstrate a large distance between the welded area and the end of the case, Ko et al. does not explicitly teach a distance between the welded area and the end of the case is 0.2 to 0.6 mm.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal value of a results effective variable, such as the placement of the welded area, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the placement of the welded area can impact the structural properties of the battery. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the welded area and the end of the case be 0.2 mm or more in order to sufficiently couple the cap-up and the safety vent to each other while also providing protection to the cap-up [0051].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20090117459 (“Hyung et al.”).
Ko et al. recognizes the importance of sealing pressure in its secondary battery and the necessary safety features to prevent the secondary battery from exploding [0039].
Ko et al. does not teach a sealing pressure of the secondary battery is 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf.
However, Hyung et al. teaches a secondary battery wherein the cap body and can are welded to each other in a welding portion. While Hyung et al. does not disclose the same welded area as claimed, Hyung et al. recognizes using welding to hermetically seal the cap assembly and the can together, and to prevent the inside of the can from being exposed to outside air [0059]. This produces a sealing pressure of the battery of from 20-30 kgf/cm2 [0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Ko et al.’s battery have an appropriate sealing pressure of 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf in order to achieve a high strength and preserve the integrity of the secondary battery.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20070212595 (“Kim et al.”).
Ko et al. does not teach a gasket is spaced apart from the safety vent in a region between the welded area and an end of the vent extension portion.
However, Kim et al. teaches its gasket is spaced apart from a safety vent in a region between the welded area and an end of a vent extension portion (Figs. 2 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed structure in order to maintain airtightness in the battery ([0015] and [0044]).
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20070212595 (“Kim et al.”). Please note that US Pub. No. 20200295319 is the English language equivalent to WO ‘160 and all citations will refer to the US publication.
With regards to Claims 1, 12, and 13, Ko et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (110), a case (120) in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, and a cap assembly (130) which is coupled to a top of the case and comprises a cap-up (140), a safety vent (150) provided under the cap-up and having a vent extension portion (153) extending to a top of the cap-up so as to cover an edge of the cap-up, and a cap-down (170) provided under the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (110). Ko et al. further teaches the vent extension portion (153) has a welded area (155) formed by welding the cap-up and the safety vent to each other, and the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward the center of the secondary battery (Abstract, Figs. 1-3, [0035], [0036], [0038], [0040], and [0046]).
Ko et al. does not explicitly teach the welded area includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket (e.g. a welded bead), and wherein the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket.
However, Kim et al. teaches a welded area (a welded bead 600) includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket (500), and wherein the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket (Abstract, Fig. 5, [0044], and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Ko et al.’s welded area be a welded bead shape with a protrusion in view of design choice and to sufficiently adhere the cap-up and safety vent to each other.
Due to the shape of the welded bead, a protrusion is raised above an upper surface of the vent extension portion. With the gasket placed over the welded bead, the gasket initially contacts the highest points of the welded bead and a separation space is formed adjacent to the welded bead, especially along the side regions (i.e. a raised weld bead creates non-contact regions under a flat gasket). Therefore, the modified prior art teaches the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket (i.e. the sides of the welded area).
With regards to Claim 4, Ko et al. teaches the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the vent extension portion in an outward direction (Figs. 1-3).
With regards to Claim 5, Ko et al. teaches a gasket (190) is located between the welded area and the end of the case (Figs. 1-2, [0044], and [0051]).
With regards to Claims 6 and 7, Ko et al. teaches the welded area is in arch or arc shape (Figs. 4-5 and [0048]). While Ko et al. does not explicitly teach the welded area is in a circle shape, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the welded area to a circle shape, to form a complete welding seal between the cap-up and the safety vent to increase coupling/adhesion strength [0049]. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
With regards to Claim 8, Ko et al. teaches the case includes a side plate (121) and a bottom plate (122) sealing a lower portion of the side plate, and the end of the case is an uppermost part of the side plate (Fig. 1 and [0035]).
With regards to Claim 9, Ko et al. teaches the end of the case is bent to form a crimping part (124) that fixes the cap assembly (Figs. 1-2 and [0035]).
With regards to Claim 10, Ko et al. recognizes the importance of the placement of the welded area. Specifically, Ko et al. teaches a distance L1 between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion is greater than 1% of a length of L2 of the vent extension portion, wherein the distance L1 may be formed to be at least 0.03 mm or greater (Fig. 3, [0046], and [0051]).
While Figs. 1-2 of Ko et al. appear to demonstrate a large distance between the welded area and the end of the case, Ko et al. does not explicitly teach a distance between the welded area and the end of the case is 0.2 to 0.6 mm.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal value of a results effective variable, such as the placement of the welded area, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the placement of the welded area can impact the structural properties of the battery. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the welded area and the end of the case be 0.2 mm or more in order to sufficiently couple the cap-up and the safety vent to each other while also providing protection to the cap-up [0051].
With regards to Claim 15, Ko et al. does not teach a gasket is spaced apart from the safety vent in a region between the welded area and an end of the vent extension portion.
However, Kim et al. teaches its gasket is spaced apart from a safety vent in a region between the welded area and an end of a vent extension portion (Figs. 2 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed structure in order to maintain airtightness in the battery ([0015] and [0044]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20070212595 (“Kim et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20090117459 (“Hyung et al.”).
Ko et al. recognizes the importance of sealing pressure in its secondary battery and the necessary safety features to prevent the secondary battery from exploding [0039].
Ko et al. does not teach a sealing pressure of the secondary battery is 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf.
However, Hyung et al. teaches a secondary battery wherein the cap body and can are welded to each other in a welding portion. While Hyung et al. does not disclose the same welded area as claimed, Hyung et al. recognizes using welding to hermetically seal the cap assembly and the can together, and to prevent the inside of the can from being exposed to outside air [0059]. This produces a sealing pressure of the battery of from 20-30 kgf/cm2 [0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Ko et al.’s battery have an appropriate sealing pressure of 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf in order to achieve a high strength and preserve the integrity of the secondary battery.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20070212595 (“Kim et al.”) in view of WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”). Please note that US Pub. No. 20200295319 is the English language equivalent to WO ‘160 and all citations will refer to the US publication.
With regards to Claims 1 and 12, Kim et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case (200) in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, and a cap assembly (400) which is coupled to a top of the case and comprises a cap-up (410), a safety vent (420) provided under the cap-up and having a vent extension portion (428) extending to a top of the cap-up so as to cover an edge of the cap-up, and a cap-down (700) provided under the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (Abstract, Fig. 2, [0042]-[0044], [0049], and [0050]).
Kim et al. teaches the vent extension portion has a welded area (600) formed by welding the cap-up and the safety vent to each other, wherein the welded area includes a protrusion protruding toward a gasket (500), and wherein the protrusion is spaced apart from the gasket such that the welded area is not in contact with the gasket (Fig. 5, [0044], and [0052]).
While Kim et al. teaches the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case (via the gasket), Kim et al. does not teach the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward a center of the secondary battery.
However, Ko et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (110), a case (120) in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, and a cap assembly (130) which is coupled to a top of the case and comprises a cap-up (140), a safety vent (150) provided under the cap-up and having a vent extension portion (153) extending to a top of the cap-up so as to cover an edge of the cap-up, and a cap-down (170) provided under the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (110). Ko et al. further teaches the vent extension portion (153) has a welded area (155) formed by welding the cap-up and the safety vent to each other, and the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward the center of the secondary battery (Abstract, Figs. 1-3, [0035], [0036], [0038], [0040], and [0046]).
Ko et al. recognizes the importance of the placement of the welded area. Specifically, Ko et al.’s welded area is at a predetermined distance apart from an end of the vent extension portion and a top portion of the welded area is covered by a gasket. Therefore, a portion of the cap-up is not exposed to the outside, preventing it from being oxidized. This is done by having a distance L1 between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion be greater than 1% of a length of L2 of the vent extension portion, wherein the distance L1 may be formed to be at least 0.03 mm or greater (Fig. 3, [0046], and [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kim et al.’s welded area be spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward a center of the secondary battery to improve quality by preventing the cap-up from being oxidized [0051].
With regards to Claim 4, Kim et al. teaches the welded area is spaced apart form an end of the vent extension portion in an outward direction (Fig. 5).
With regards to Claim 5, Kim et al. teaches the gasket is located between the welded area and the end of the case (Figs. 2 and 5).
With regards to Claims 6 and 7, Kim et al. teaches the welded area is in arch or arc shape (Fig. 5). While Ko et al. does not explicitly teach the welded area is in a circle shape, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the welded area to a circle shape, to form a complete welding seal/bond. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
With regards to Claim 8, Kim et al. teaches the case includes a side and a bottom plate sealing a lower portion of the side plate, and the end of the case is an uppermost part of the side plate [0004].
With regards to Claim 9, Kim et al. does not teach the end of the case is bent to form a crimping part that fixes the cap assembly.
However, Ko et al. teaches the end of the case is bent to form a crimping part (124) that fixes the cap assembly (Figs. 1-2 and [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a crimping part as claimed to securely attach the case to the cap assembly [0035].
With regards to Claim 10, the prior art of record teaches the welded area is spaced apart from an end of the case in an inward direction toward a center of the secondary battery as set forth above.
Kim et al. does not teach a distance between the welded area and the end of the case is 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm.
However, Ko et al. recognizes the importance of the placement of the welded area. Specifically, Ko et al.’s welded area is at a predetermined distance apart from an end of the vent extension portion and a top portion of the welded area is covered by a gasket. Therefore, a portion of the cap-up is not exposed to the outside, preventing it from being oxidized. This is done by having a distance L1 between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion be greater than 1% of a length of L2 of the vent extension portion, wherein the distance L1 may be formed to be at least 0.03 mm or greater (Fig. 3, [0046], and [0051]).
While Figs. 1-2 appear to demonstrate a large distance between the welded area and the end of the case, Ko et al. does not explicitly teach a distance between the welded area and the end of the case is 0.2 to 0.6 mm.
The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal value of a results effective variable, such as the placement of the welded area, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the placement of the welded area can impact the structural properties of the battery. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the welded area and the end of the case be 0.2 mm or more in Kim et al. in order to sufficiently couple the cap-up and the safety vent to each other while also providing protection to the cap-up [0051].
With regards to Claim 13, Kim et al. teaches the welded area is formed at an end of the vent extension portion (Fig. 5).
With regards to Claim 15, Kim et al. teaches the gasket is spaced apart from the safety vent in a region between the welded area and an end of a vent extension portion (Figs. 2 and 5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20070212595 (“Kim et al.”) in view of WO 2019112160 A1 (“Ko et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20090117459 (“Hyung et al.”).
Kim et al. does not teach a sealing pressure of the secondary battery is 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf.
However, Hyung et al. teaches a secondary battery wherein the cap body and can are welded to each other in a welding portion. While Hyung et al. does not disclose the same welded area as claimed, Hyung et al. recognizes using welding to hermetically seal the cap assembly and the can together, and to prevent the inside of the can from being exposed to outside air [0059]. This produces a sealing pressure of the battery of from 20-30 kgf/cm2 [0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kim et al.’s battery have an appropriate sealing pressure of 29.2 kgf to 30.2 kgf in order to achieve a high strength and preserve the integrity of the secondary battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 20120094169 – Fig. 5 and [0085] discloses that a structure at the end of its case is configured to achieve a secondary battery with a sealing pressure of 20 kgf/cm2 or more. Therefore, it appears that a welding area is not necessarily needed to achieve a desired sealing pressure for the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights