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 Claims
Claims 1-9, 11 are pending.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/26/2026 are entered.
112 rejection has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendments.
102 rejection has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20230395932 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20110008654 A1; referred to as Kim*) and in view of Tucholski et al (US 4025696).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kim teaches a cap assembly configured to be coupled to an upper portion of a secondary battery can (Figure 1B, Element 140; connected to battery can 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The cap assembly comprises a top cap (annotated Figure 2, Element 141) configured to be coupled to the upper portion of the secondary battery can; a safety vent (Figure 2, Element 142e) positioned under the top cap and coupled to a distal end of the top cap; and a current interrupt device (Element 144e) located under the safety vent and having at least a portion that is in contact with the safety vent.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that the material of the current interrupt device is aluminum of purity greater than 99%, and the safety vent material is an aluminum alloy such as Al-Mn, Al-Si etc (Paragraph 0048). This coincides with the materials listed in instant specification on Page 12, Lines 9-16; and on Page 13, Lines 17-21. Since the materials used in Kim are the same as the materials in the instant invention, hence, the property related to hardness is the same. The hardness of the current interrupt device material is lower than a hardness of the safety vent. See MPEP 2112.01, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.
Kim teaches that the safety vent includes vent contact part (Element 142a; edge portion) that is in contact with the cap-up, a vent inclined part (Figure 2, Element 142b; venting portion) that is inclined downward from the vent contact part, and vent bottom part (Element 142c; recessed central) that extends in parallel from the vent inclined part. Kim teaches a vent concave part 142f on the recessed central potion (akin to the notch).
PNG
media_image2.png
320
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim does not teach a first notch is defined in the safety vent between the recessed central portion and the venting portion wherein a second notch is defined in the safety vent between the recessed central portion and the edge portion.
However, Kim* teaches a cylindrical secondary battery with a top cap and a safety vent assembly such that on the safety vent a first notch 324 is formed at an upper bent portion (Paragraph 0078; akin to region between recessed central portion and the edge portion) of the safety vent 320. Second notches 326 are formed at a lower bent portion of the safety vent 320 (Paragraph 0078; akin to region between the recessed central portion and the venting portion). Notches 324 and 326 along with their placement as shown in Kim* is seen in Figure 15 below. Alternatively, the safety vent structure of Kim* 320 can be utilized as a whole into the cap assembly of Kim which would meet the claimed features related to the portions of the safety vent and the placement of the notches. Hence, 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 first and second notch as shown in Kim* into the corresponding regions of Kim in order to provide a cap assembly of improved safety that is capable of releasing rapidly pressurized gas out of a battery (Paragraph 0017).
PNG
media_image3.png
453
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim in view of Kim* does not teach that a lower surface of the venting portion between the first notch and the second notch is formed at an angle of 0 to 30˚ with an upper surface of the edge portion.
However, Tucholski teaches a sealed galvanic cell or battery in which the electrical continuity of the cell is broken in response to a predetermined physical deformation of the cell (Column 1, Lines 5-10). In other words, it teaches about a current interrupting device for a battery. In this device, the angle θ as shown in Figure 4b should not exceed 20˚ (Column 4, Lines 2-3). This angle range overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 30˚. As can be seen in Tucholski, that the active switch member (safety vent) has an edge portion and a venting portion, and the angle θ is formed between the 2 portions. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the angle range in Tucholski for the inclination shown in Kim in order to ensure that the safety vent or switch member are irreversibly displaced upon the application of a predetermined force (Column 3, Lines 17-24), and in turn be able to cut off current flow through the cell (Column 1, Lines 26- 30, Lines 60-68).
PNG
media_image4.png
199
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, 4, 5,
Kim teaches that the safety vent includes aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Paragraph 0046).
Kim teaches that the material of the current interrupt device is aluminum of purity greater than 99%. This is within the claimed range of greater than 90%.
Regarding Claim 6 -9,
Kim teaches that the material of the current interrupt device is aluminum of purity greater than 99%, and the safety vent material is an aluminum alloy such as Al-Mn, Al-Si etc (Paragraph 0048). This coincides with the materials listed in instant specification on Page 12, Lines 9-16; and on Page 13, Lines 17-21. Since the materials used in Kim are the same as the materials in the instant invention, hence, the properties related to hardness, yield strength and elongation rate are the same. See MPEP 2112.01, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Hence, based on the similarity in the materials used, the safety vent in Kim has a hardness of 15 Kgf/mm2 to 35 Kgf/mm2, and the current interrupt device has a hardness of 10 Kgf/mm2 to 30 Kgf/mm2. Similarly, the safety vent would have a yield strength of 1 Kgf/mm2 to 5 Kgf/mm2, and current interrupt device would have a yield strength of 2 Kgf/mm2 to 6 Kgf/mm2.
Kim teaches that when the elongation rate of the cap-down portion 144 is greater than the elongation rate of the safety vent 142 (that is, when the material of the cap-down is a ductile material), the safety vent 142 may be separated from the cap-down portion 144 after the cap-down portion 144 is elongated upward by a predetermined length as the internal pressure of the can 110 increases. Thereafter, when the internal pressure of the can 110 further increases, the safety vent 142 is eventually broken and opened, and thus, the gas inside the can 110 is discharged to the outside. Hence, based on the material similarity and the motivation explained above, the elongation rate property of the safety vent and the current interrupt device would be the same as the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 11,
Kim teaches a cylindrical secondary battery which includes a cylindrical can; an electrode assembly accommodated in the cylindrical can; and a cap assembly for sealing the electrode assembly by covering the cylindrical can (Paragraph 0006).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kim* and Tucholski and as evidenced by article on “Aluminum and its alloys” (https://web.archive.org/web/20190820010349/https://www.arnoldmagnetics.com/materials/aluminum-aluminum-alloys/).
Kim teaches that the safety vent material is an aluminum alloy such as Al-Mn, Al-Si etc (Paragraph 0048). Kim also teaches that the aluminum alloys can be from the 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000 series. The definition of these alloy types is found in the article provided as evidentiary reference. The table within the articles cites % composition of a few of the commonly provided grades of aluminum alloy. The % range in the table coincides with the claimed ranges of 85% by weight to 98% by weight of aluminum, 0% by weight to 7% or less by weight of manganese, 0% by weight to 5% or less by weight of iron, and 0% by weight to 5% or less by weight of silicon.
PNG
media_image5.png
275
926
media_image5.png
Greyscale
References of Interest
Mori et al (US 6242126 B1)
Vu et al (US 5691073 A)
Kim et al (US 20210184308A1)
Gong et al (US 20180366716 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose a first notch and second notch. Examiner points to rejection of claim 1 above which uses the prior art of Kim in view of Kim* to depict the first and second notches.
Applicant argues that Tucholski does not disclose any notches and therefore does not disclose a lower surface of the venting portion between the first notch and the second notch. Examiner disagrees with this argument because the angle in Tucholski provides the angle at the intersection of two lines of which the one line can include the notches as depicted by Kim*. Kim in view of Kim* provides guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cap and safety vent structure with notches whereas, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Tucholski for guidance around the angle that the two portions of the safety vent make. The instant specification also states that a lower surface of the venting portion 32b may have an inclination of an angle of 00 to 300 with an upper surface or a lower surface of the edge portion 32c of the safety vent 32 (i.e. not based on notches).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights