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
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1 and 4-7, cancelled Claims 2-3, and new Claims 10-15 in the response filed on 11/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not provide any teaching, suggestion, or recognition that modifying the distance between the welded area and the end of the case to be 0.2 mm or more, as recited in Claim 1, would predictably yield the operational result of achieving an optimal sealing pressure. Applicant argued that its data shows that the claimed configuration produces unexpected and superior results relative to the prior art.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ko et al. teaches the vent extension portion (153) has a welded area (155) formed by welding a cap-up and the safety vent to each other. While Figs. 2-3 of Ko et al. are not necessarily drawn to scale, the instant figures do demonstrate that there is a distance between the end of the case and the welded area. Specifically, the welded area is spaced in a predetermined distance apart from the end of the vent extension portion, wherein L1 is a length between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion and is greater than 1% of a length L2 of the vent extension portion. The distance L1 may be formed to be at least 0.03 mm or greater (Fig. 3 and [0046]). Therefore, as the distance L1 increases, a distance between the welded area and the end of the case decreases (i.e. the welded area gets closer to the end of the case), and would necessarily overlap with Applicant’s D1 range of 0.2 mm or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Thus, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize a distance between the welded area and the end of the case, which correlates to a distance between the welded area and the end of the vent extension portion part L1, in order to sufficiently couple the cap-up and the safety vent to each other while also providing protection to the cap-up [0051]. Moreover, Applicant also has not provided enough comparative examples to determine that Ko et al. does not produce the argued unexpected results.
The data set forth in Table 1 do not show that a distance between the welded area and the end of the case of 0.2 mm or more is critical in achieving unexpected results. That is, Applicant has not provided sufficient enough examples in the range of 0.2 mm or more to establish the criticality of said broad range. Furthermore, Table 1 discloses examples where the separation distance is outside the claimed range, yet achieves the argued unexpected results. In the First battery at a separation distance of 0.1 mm, a sealing pressure is 29.0 kgf. In the Second battery with a separation distance of 0.15 mm, the sealing pressure is at 30.0 kgf. Therefore, the separation distance in these examples are outside the range, yet has the argued unexpected results, and are determined to be a good product since the sealing pressure is about 27 kgf to about 33 kfg ([0052] in Applicant’s as-filed Specification).
For the reasons set forth above, unexpected results have not been persuasively demonstrated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant has amended the claim set to include new Claim 14, which recites “the welded area is formed by protruding upward.” 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: To promote clarity, please amend “the center” to “a center”.
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 13-15 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 13 recites the limitation "the end of the vent extension portion” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 reciting that the welded area is formed by protruding upward is unclear to the Examiner. As shown in Fig. 3, the welded area has a thickness or length-wise direction. Is this what the Applicant is referring to?
It appears that Applicant’s paragraph [0047] corresponds to the instant claim. It states that the closer the end 125 of the case 120 and the welded area 155 are, the poorer the sealing capability of the secondary battery 100 is. The reason of the foregoing is that, since 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.
However in Fig. 3, the welded area and gasket are flush and in contact with each other. So it is unclear how the welded area is protruding upward and/or producing a separation space between the welded area and the gasket. For the purpose of evaluating prior art, the welded area in contact with the gasket meets the instant limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the gasket". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 12-14 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, 10, 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. 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.
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 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 14, as best understood under 112, Ko et al. teaches the welded area is formed by protruding upward (Fig. 2 and 3).
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.
Claims 14 and 15 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. teaches that the welding area (155) having a thickness direction and therefore appears to be formed by protruding upward (Fig. 2). Ko et al. teaches a gasket between the welded area and an end of the vent extension portion.
Ko does not explicitly teach the welded area is formed by protruding upward. 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 a welded area that is formed by protruding upward, and 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 to maintain airtightness in the battery ([0015] and [0044]).
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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