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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group III the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the presents claims are directed to a single inventive concept deserving full substantive consideration on the merit. This is not found persuasive because group I-IV ate lacking unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 32, 33, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dean et al (Pat no. 5171647).
Regarding claim 32, Dean et al teach a electrochemical cell comprising:
a cylindrical can 72 comprising a first can end side [fig 4 col 9 lines 10-32],
a first conductive sheet 90, with first electrode coating, wound to form a jelly roll which is arranged in the can, and wherein the first conductive sheet comprises a portion free of first electrode coating 94 which protrudes on a first end side of the jelly roll [fig 4 col 9 lines 10-32]], and
an electrode lead plate 10 which is electrically conductive (plate 12) and arranged at the first end side of the jelly roll and in direct contact with at least part of the potion free of first electrode coating of the first conductive sheet [fig 4 col 56-65 fig 4 col 9 lines 10-68 col 10 lines 33],
wherein the electrode lead plate (86, 10) comprises a hollow protrusion which protrudes through an opening in the can such that a part of the protrusion is exposed to the outside of the can, and wherein the part of the protrusion which is exposed to the outside of the can comprises a vent arrangement (18, 20,22) ( fig 4 col 6 lines 36-60 fig 4 col 9 lines 10-68 col 10 lines 33) where the terminal is terminal 86.
Regarding claim 33, Dean et al teaches the part of the protrusion exposed to the outside of the can comprises at least part of the terminal (the terminal is protruded outside the can to be electrical connected to the lead plate 10 and terminal 8 is a part of the lead plate and part of part of the protrusion) [fig 4].
Regarding claim 36, Dean et al teaches a second conductive sheet 88 with second electrode coating, and a separator sheet 92, wherein the first conductive sheet, the separator sheet 92and the second conductive sheet 88 are wound to form the jelly roll [fig 4 col 9 lines 10-68 col 10 lines 33].
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.
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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean et al (Pat no. 5171647) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Begg et al (PG pub 20070275293).
Regarding claim 34, Dean et al teaches vent 22 being used when the internal pressure is higher than predetermined level (col 8 lines 65-68), but Dean et al does not teach the vent being made of thinning of material as claimed.
Begg et al teach a battery cell having end plate 18 with vent mechanism 40 where the thickness of the vent 40 being reduced such that the closed end wall 18 of can 12 will bulge outward as pressure within the can 12 increases and, upon reaching the predetermined vent pressure, the vent 40 will rupture and release the pressurized gases and/or liquid [para 46]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vent of Dean et al to be made of thinning material of Begg et al such that the vent would be ruptured when the pressure inside the cell is greater than predetermined level for preventing the deteriorate of battery cell and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean et al (Pat no. 5171647) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Kim et al (PG Pub 20070212595).
Regarding claim 35, Dean et al teaches vent 22 being used when the internal pressure is higher than predetermined level (col 8 lines 65-68), but Dean et al does not teach the vent being a notch.
Kim et al teach a battery cell comprising a vent having a notch When the interior pressure of the container is increased to more than the critical pressure, the second notch of the vent 420 is broken [para 47]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vent of Dean et al to be comprised at least one notch such that the vent would be ruptured when the pressure inside the cell is greater than predetermined level for preventing the deteriorate of battery cell and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights