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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
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 1-8 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, Ln 8-9 recites the limitation “the elongation rates of the cap-down portion and the safety vent are different from each other.” The term “elongation rate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear definition about it, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear whether the term “elongation rate” is attempting to claim the speed of lengthening over time; or the ratio of a material stretched/deformed under a tensile test. The boundary of the recited limitation is therefore indefinite because the meaning of “elongation rate” is unclear. The instant disclosure [0056] provides “when the elongation rate of the cap-down portion144 is greater than the elongation rate of the safety vent 142 (that is, when the material of the cap-down is a ductile material),” which seems supporting the second interpretation, i.e., the ratio of a material being stretched under a tensile test. However, claims must be provided with their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, but limitations from the specification must not be read into the claims. [MPEP 2111].
For examination purposes the recitation “the elongation rates of the cap-down portion and the safety vent are different from each other” in claim 1 will be considered as read on when the speeds of lengthening over time for the cap-down portion and the safety vent are different from each other; and/or the ratio of materials of the cap-down portion and the safety vent being stretched/deformed under a tensile test are different from each other.
Claims 2-8 dependent from claim 1, are rejected for incorporating the same indefinite subject matter from its base claim, respectively.
Claim 7, Ln 3 recites the limitation “a vent bottom part that extends in parallel from the vent inclined part”. The term “extends in parallel from” is unclear because it is not defined by the claim or by the text part of the specification of the instant application. The ordinary meaning of the term “extends in parallel from” means “a structural or spatial relationship where one object, line, or area runs alongside another in the same direction, starting from a common point or boundary” (Examiner-added emphasis). However, all of the relevant drawings (FIGs. 1-4) of the instant application appear to show one running alongside another in a different direction, which is contrary to or inconsistent with the term’s ordinary meaning. For example, in FIG. 3A, a vent bottom part 142c extends from the vent inclined part 142b along a horizontal direction which is a different from the downwardly inclined direction along which the vent inclined part 142b runs. Therefore, the term “extends in parallel from” is contrary to or inconsistent with the embodiments shown through all the figures in the instant application. Applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. However, it is unclear what the recited claim limitation is attempting to claim regarding the undefined direction of extending. [MPEP 2173.05(a) (III)].
Claim 8 dependent from claim 7, is rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness from it base claim; and claim 8 Ln 4-5 is further rejected regarding the recitation “a cap-down bottom part that extends in parallel from the cap-down inclined part” for using the same indefinite term “extends in parallel from” for the same reason set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi (JP 2013243020 A, IDS of 9/2/2025 for original and EPO machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection as set forth above, Fukushi discloses a secondary battery (10, [0025] and FIG. 1) comprising: a can (battery case 12, [0025] and FIG. 1); an electrode assembly (electrode body 20, [0025] and FIG.1) accommodated in the can; and a cap assembly (sealing plate 14, [0027] and FIG1) for sealing the electrode assembly by covering the can, wherein the cap assembly includes: a cap-up portion (conductive member 33, [0028] and FIG. 3); a cap-down portion (connecting member 50, [0028] and FIG. 3) provided below the cap-up portion; and a safety vent (deformable member 40, [0028] and FIG. 3) provided between the cap-up portion and the cap-down portion.
Fukushi further discloses the connecting member 50 is formed of aluminum (Al) or an aluminum alloy (Al alloy) 52, and the deformable member 40 is formed of a composite material including a member 44 made of an aluminum-manganese alloy (Al-Mn alloy) as part of a main material 42 made of aluminum (Al) ([0034] and FIG. 5B). A skilled artisan would readily envisage using aluminum (Al) for forming the cap-down portion (connecting member 50) since Fukushi mentions Al for forming the connecting member 50 with specificity, therefore, necessarily and inherently arriving at the claimed “the elongation rates of the cap-down portion and the safety vent are different from each other” because the safety vent (deformable member 40) made of Al-Mn alloy has different expansion rate compared to that of the cap-down portion (connecting member 50) made of Al.
Fukushi uses a prismatic shape secondary battery 10 ([0025] and FIG. 1), not explicitly disclosing a cylindrical shape in FIG. 1.
However, Fukushi further mentions the shape of the battery is not limited to a prismatic shape and may be any other shape such as a cylindrical shape ([0025]), which renders obvious the limitations as claimed “a cylindrical battery” and “a cylindrical can”.
Regarding claim 2, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since Modified Fukushi has included Al for forming the connecting member 50 and Al-Mn alloy for the deformable member 40, a skilled artisan would readily envisage the property is met as claimed “the elongation rates of the cap-down portion and the safety vent are different from each other”, because the safety vent (deformable member 40) made of Al-Mn alloy has lower expansion rate compared to that of the cap-down portion (connecting member 50) made of Al which is very soft and highly ductile.
Regarding claim 3, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi has disclosed the safety vent and the cap-down portion include aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0034] and FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 4, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi has included the limitation that the safety vent includes an aluminum-manganese (AI-Mn)-based alloy, and the cap-down portion includes aluminum set forth in claim 1.
Modified Fukushi further discloses pure aluminum having a purity higher than 99% for the cap-down portion (connecting member 50, [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi has the safety vent including an aluminum-manganese (AI-Mn)-based alloy, and the cap-down portion including aluminum as set forth in claim 1.
Modified Fukushi does not explicitly discloses the safety vent includes a 3003- or 3005-series aluminum alloy, and the cap-down portion includes a 1050-series aluminum alloy.
However, modified Fukushi further disclose pure aluminum having a purity higher than 99% for the cap-down portion (connecting member 50, [0042]) including a 1050-series aluminum alloy among other series (A1050, [0042]) for better electrical conductivity and better properties such as corrosion resistance and workability ([0042]); and as the aluminum-manganese alloy (Al-Mn alloy) may be a 3003- or 3005-series aluminum alloy among other series (A3003, A3005, [0044]) for the effect of improving weldability ([0044]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to choose 3003- or 3005-series aluminum alloy from the finite list of choices as the aluminum alloy for the safety vent, and further choose 1050-series aluminum alloy from the finite list of choices as aluminum for the cap-down portion, arriving at the claimed “the safety vent includes a 3003- or 3005-series aluminum alloy, and the cap-down portion includes a 1050-series aluminum alloy” with a reasonable expectation in achieving an optimized balance among preferable properties, such as better electrical conductivity, better corrosion resistance and workability, and improved weldability. [MPEP 2144.05 (II)].
Regarding claim 6, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi further discloses the safety vent and the cap-down portion are connected to each other by laser welding ([0052]).
Regarding claim 7, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi further discloses the safety vent (40, FIG. 3) include a vent contact part in contact with the cap-up (33 and 40 are in contact at the oval area, Annotated FIG. 3), a vent inclined part that is inclined downward from the vent contact part (Annotated FIG. 3), a vent bottom part (recess 46, [0051] and FIG. 3) that extends in parallel from the vent inclined part, and a vent protruding part (truncated cone shape of 46 protruding downward, [0051] and FIG. 3) that protrudes from the vent bottom part and is connected to the cap-down portion (46 and 56 joined, [0051] and FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
789
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushi (JP 2013243020 A, IDS of 9/2/2025 for original and EPO machine translation for citation), as applied to claim 7, in view of Ko (KR 20190066412 A, English equivalent US 20200295319 A for citation, IDS of 9/2/2025).
Regarding claim 8, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above, modified Fukushi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fukushi further discloses the cap-down portion includes: a cap-down contact part (break portion 56, [0051] and FIG. 3) that is in contact with the safety vent (recess 46, [0051] and FIG. 3) through a connection ring (insulating member 34, [0051] and FIG. 3).
While modified Fukushi has a cap-down bottom part (56, FIG. 3) that extends in parallel via a right angle step recessing inwardly on the cap-down (50, FIG. 3) such that 56 and 46 are well bonded to each other ([0051] and FIG. 3) by laser welding with high quality and strength without increasing the internal resistance ([0052]), modified Fukushi does not explicitly disclose a cap-down inclined part that is inclined downward from the cap-down contact part; a cap-down bottom part that extends in parallel from the cap-down inclined part; a through hole that penetrates the cap-down part; a cap-down concave part that is formed on a lower surface of the cap-down bottom part and is connected to the vent protruding part.
Ko teaches a secondary battery capable of improving the coupling force between a safety vent and a cap-up ([0005]) via a cap assembly 130 includes a cap-up 140, a safety vent 150, an insulator 160, a cap-down 170, and a sub-plate 180 ([0036] and FIG. 2). Ko further teaches the cap-down 170 has a cap-down inclined part (inclined portion of 172, Annotated FIG. 2) that is inclined downward from the cap-down contact part (Annotated FIG. 2); a cap-down bottom part that extends in parallel from the cap-down inclined part (Annotated FIG. 2); a through hole (gas discharge hole 172, [0042] and FIG. 2) that penetrates the cap-down part.
Ko further teaches the sub-plate 180 fixed to a bottom surface of the cap-down 170 by the protrusion part 151 formed at the center of the safety vent 150 ([0038] and FIG. 2); and in some embodiments, the protrusion part 151 of the safety vent 150 and the sub-plate 180 may be welded to each other ([0038]). {Examiner notes: The sub-plate 180 is functionally equivalent to “a cap-down concave part that is formed on a lower surface of the cap-down bottom part” in the claim, because 180 fixed to the cap-down 170; the protrusion part 151 is functionally equivalent to the vent protrusion part (truncated cone shape of 46) in modified Fukushi; and the cap-down concave part (equivalent of 180) is connected (welded, Ko:[0038]) to the vent protruding part 151}. [MPEP 2144.06 (II)].
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cap-down portion (connecting member 50) of modified Fukushi with additions of a cap-down inclined part that is inclined downward from the cap-down contact part; a through hole that penetrates the cap-down part; and a cap-down concave part that is formed on a lower surface of the cap-down bottom part and is connected to the vent protruding part, in the same fashion as the combination of the cap-down 170 and the sub-plate 180, in order to improve the coupling force between a safety vent and a cap-up as taught by Ko, and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a laser welding with high quality and strength without increasing the internal resistance as desired by modified Fukushi.
PNG
media_image2.png
894
1384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
1/14/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/22/2026