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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A drawn to Figs. 1 and 2, and claims 1-7, 12 and 13 in the reply filed on 03/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention has to be considered in the first place only in relation to the independent claims in an international application and not the dependent claims and therefore no restriction can be made between species. This is not found persuasive because when an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs to be carefully considered. If there is no link remaining, an objection of lack of unity a posteriori (that is, arising only after assessment of the prior art) may be raised. Similar considerations apply in the case of a genus/species or combination/subcombination situation. (MPEP 1850 (II)). As noted in the restriction requirement mailed 01/23/2025 and in the office action below the prior art discloses the common feature in the independent claim and Species A, B and C and therefore there is no inventive link. As noted in the restriction requirement mailed 01/23/2025 upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/23/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20180083566 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an electrode assembly (115 in Fig. 2 and [0052] see Figs. 1-5);
a battery case (see Fig. 2, 116 [0052]) housing the electrode assembly (115 see Fig. 2);
a recessed part (see portion in which 130 is formed in [0054][0052]) recessed in a direction toward an inside of the battery case (116) from a bottom of the battery case; and a gas discharge port (see portion of 130 that opens and port is formed in 131 [0054]) located in the recessed part.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses further comprising an electrode tab connected to the electrode assembly, wherein the recessed part is located in the bottom of the battery case where the electrode tab (electrode terminals formed in cap 112 [0052]) is not connected to the battery case (116).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses further comprising a cover (139 [0058]) covering the gas discharge port.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180083566 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses secondary batteries are used in mobile devices as energy sources ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the secondary battery of Lee by using it in a device because as disclosed by Lee it is obvious to do so.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180083566 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 and 13 above and in further view of Lai (CN 211350788 U, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lee does not disclose that a gas discharge vent has a rotatable cover.
Lai discloses a gas discharge vent (see 1 and 31 which forms vent structure) with a rotatable cover (1, Abstract, pgs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the gas discharge vent structure of Lee with the gas discharge vent structure of Lai as it is merely a gas discharge vent structure for a secondary battery recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so and further once the pressure is released Lai discloses that gas discharge vent can be closed (See working principle pg. 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lee does not disclose that a gas discharge vent has a rotatable cover.
Lai discloses a gas discharge vent (see 1 and 31 which forms vent structure) with a rotatable cover (1, Abstract, pgs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the gas discharge vent structure of Lee with the gas discharge vent structure of Lai as it is merely a gas discharge vent structure for a secondary battery recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so and further once the pressure is released Lai discloses that gas discharge vent can be closed (See working principle pg. 3).
Lai discloses that the gas discharge port (31) includes a gas discharge port hole (32) and the cover (1) includes a cover hole (12) (See pg. 3, paragraph 3). This feature will be present in modified in Lee.
In addition, Lai discloses that the cover hole 12 and cover (1) (See Fig. 2) have a cylindrical shape and a cylindrical hole (12) which matches with hole 32 (see overlap Fig. 3) and therefore both the gas discharge port hole and the cover have a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lai discloses wherein the cover is rotatable (see Fig. 4 to Fig. 3, see pg. 3) into a position in which the gas discharge port hole and the cover hole are aligned with each other, and wherein an internal gas is discharged through the aligned gas discharge port hole and cover hole (see Working Principle pg. 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lai discloses wherein the cover hole is equal to in size than size of the gas discharge port hole (see Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights