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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023 and 06/21/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20230395930 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki teaches all of the following elements:
A sealed battery comprising (“The housing body 110 includes a container 110A. The container 110A includes packaging materials 111 and 112. In an outer peripheral portion of the container 110A in plan view, the packaging materials 111 and 112 are heat sealed and fused together, thereby forming the peripheral sealing part 150.” Sasaki [0039]):
a battery case including a metal wall portion formed with a gas vent hole (“The container 110A may be constituted by packaging materials 111 and 112 such as described above, but may alternatively be a metal can, for example.” Sasaki [0104]. housing body 110, valve structure 10, inlet 20A Sasaki figure 15. If there is a valve there would inherently be a hole present that the valve is sealing.);
and a safety valve member closing the gas vent hole (“When gas is produced in the internal space S1 of the container 110A following operation of the power storage device 100, the pressure inside the internal space S1 gradually increases. When the pressure inside the internal space S1 increases excessively, the container 110A could possibly burst and the power storage device 100 could be damaged. The housing body 110 includes a valve structure 10 as a mechanism for preventing such a situation.” Sasaki [0048]),
wherein the safety valve member is a resin safety valve member made of resin (“The materials constituting the various parts of the valve structure 10 are not particularly limited. To give a preferred example, the valve body 52 can be made of a fluorocarbon resin such as PolyTetraFluoroEthylene (PTFE),” Sasaki [0070]),
the metal wall portion includes an annular seal surface that surrounds an opening edge of the gas vent hole, (“The valve structure 10 is a gas vent valve for adjusting the pressure inside the internal space S1, and is, for example, attached to the peripheral sealing part 150 of the container 110A.” Sasaki [0049]. In this case, the peripheral sealing part acts as the seal surface surrounding the gas vent and valve.)
the resin safety valve member includes: an annular joined portion hermetically joined to the annular seal surface; (“As shown in FIG. 15, the peripheral sealing part 150 may have inclined sealing parts 251X and 252X that incline so as to approach a valve sealing part 253X where the valve structure 10 and the packaging materials 111 and 112 are sealed.” Sasaki [0102]. In this case, the valve sealing part 253x functions as the annular joining portion.)
and an inside portion located more inside than the annular joined portion in a radial direction, (valve first and second body 30 and 40, respectively, act as the inside portion that are more inside than the sealing/joining portion 253x. See Sasaki figure 15)
and the inside portion is configured to break when an internal pressure of the battery case reaches a valve opening pressure to open the resin safety valve member. (“In the second embodiment, instead of the check valve 210 or the check valve 220, a breaker valve capable of one-time venting of gas, that is, a breaker valve configured to split open when the internal pressure of the container 110A increases due to gas produced inside the container 110A may be used. In this variation, a breaker valve is preferably used instead of the check valve 220,” Sasaki [0097]. In this case, the use of a breaker valve functions as a inside portion configured to break at a certain internal pressure within the battery case.)
PNG
media_image1.png
511
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
433
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Sasaki teaches all of the following elements:
The sealed battery according to claim 1, wherein the inside portion includes a thinnest portion, which is a part of the inside portion and has a thinnest thickness in the inside portion, and the thinnest portion breaks when the internal pressure of the battery case reaches the valve opening pressure to open the resin safety valve member. (See annotated Sasaki figure 10 for the thinnest portion within the safety valve configured to break at a certain pressure. “In the second embodiment, instead of the check valve 210 or the check valve 220, a breaker valve capable of one-time venting of gas, that is, a breaker valve configured to split open when the internal pressure of the container 110A increases due to gas produced inside the container 110A may be used. In this variation, a breaker valve is preferably used instead of the check valve 220,” Sasaki [0097])
PNG
media_image3.png
675
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20230395930 A1) in view of Inoue (JP 2016126989 A)
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki is silent on the following elements of claim 2:
The sealed battery according to claim 1, wherein the annular seal surface is an annular roughened surface having an uneven shape with pits and protrusions,
and the resin safety valve member is hermetically joined to the annular roughened surface by the annular joined portion made of part of the resin forming the safety valve member,
the part of the resin forming the annular joined portion entering into the pits of the annular roughened surface.
However, Inoue teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in Sasaki. Specifically, Inoue teaches a method of sealing a pressure release valve to a lid of a sealed battery case which involves joining together a resin safety release valve and a roughened joining surface.
The sealed battery according to claim 1, wherein the annular seal surface is an annular roughened surface having an uneven shape with pits and protrusions, (“The joint surface 10c of the lid body 10 with the pressure release valve 20 is a rough surface on which fine irregularities are formed as described above. Therefore, the bonding strength of the pressure release valve 20 to the lid body 10 can be sufficiently obtained.” Inoue [0030])
and the resin safety valve member is hermetically joined to the annular roughened surface by the annular joined portion made of part of the resin forming the safety valve member, (“As an example, FIG. 3 shows an example in which the pressure release valve 20 is joined to the outer surface 10a of the lid body 10 at the peripheral edge of the pressure release through hole 12. More specifically, in the example of FIG. 3, the pressure release valve 20 is joined only to the outer surface 10a of the lid body 10 at the peripheral edge of the pressure release through hole 12.” Inoue [0033])
the part of the resin forming the annular joined portion entering into the pits of the annular roughened surface. (“A pressure release valve made of resin joined to the lid body so as to close the cover, and the junction surface of the lid body with the pressure release valve has fine irregularities with an interval period of 5 nm or more and 500 μm or less providing a lid that is a roughened surface.” Inoue [0009] and “Therefore, the bonding force of the pressure release valve 20 with respect to the lid body 10 can be sufficiently secured. More specifically, the resin material constituting the pressure release valve 20 has entered the recess 16 of the joint surface 10 c of the lid body 10. Thus, the pressure release valve 20 is firmly joined to the lid body 10. Inoue [0046]. See below for a comparison of the joining method of Inoue versus the instant application)
PNG
media_image4.png
349
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
357
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Inoue is considered to be analogous to Sasaki because they are both within the same field of sealed batteries containing safety valves made of resin, which are attached to/sealed to the lid of the casing material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealed battery of Sasaki to join the safety valve and the metal wall portion by forming irregularities/roughening the surface of the metal wall portion in order to produce an effective adhesion, thus sealing the battery (“The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and the pressure release valve can be easily joined to the lid body, and sufficient joint strength and sealability between the lid body and the pressure release valve can be obtained.” Inoue [0008])
Sasaki teaches all of the additional elements of claim 4, and therefore no further modification or motivation is required.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Sasaki teaches all of the additional elements of claim 4:
The sealed battery according to claim 2, wherein the inside portion includes a thinnest portion, which is a part of the inside portion and has a thinnest thickness in the inside portion, and the thinnest portion breaks when the internal pressure of the battery case reaches the valve opening pressure to open the resin safety valve member. (See annotated Sasaki figure 10 for the thinnest portion within the safety valve configured to break at a certain pressure. “In the second embodiment, instead of the check valve 210 or the check valve 220, a breaker valve capable of one-time venting of gas, that is, a breaker valve configured to split open when the internal pressure of the container 110A increases due to gas produced inside the container 110A may be used. In this variation, a breaker valve is preferably used instead of the check valve 220,” Sasaki [0097])
PNG
media_image3.png
675
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20230395930 A1) in view of Daira (US 20240313305 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Sasaki additionally teaches the following elements of claim 5, with additional support from Daira:
The sealed battery according to claim 3, wherein the valve opening pressure is determined by a thickness of the thinnest portion. (Given that the breaker valve of Sasaki is configured to burst at a certain pressure, it would be determined by thickness of this portion. Barring a specific thickness or a specific bursting pressure claimed, this would inherently be true of the resin safety valve of Sasaki. Specification paragraph [0017] states “the breaking strength of the thinnest portion depends on the thickness of the thinnest portion. Hence, the valve opening pressure of the above-described sealed battery is determined by the thickness of the thinnest portion.” This would apply not only to the instantly claimed invention, but any other resin-based safety valve configured to break at a certain pressure as well, as the thickness/strength of the seal is a key factor in determining the pressure required to break the seal and release the valve. For an example of a similar device actively adjusting the thickness of a valve to optimize the valve opening pressure, see US 20240313305 A1, which states “A first pressure at which the sealing plate 27 as the safety valve ruptures can be adjusted, for example, with a thickness of the annular end 39 of the inclined portion 27c on the outer side in the radial direction. A second pressure at which the inversion portion 43 is inverted can be adjusted, for example, with a thickness, of the tapered portion 43a of the bottom 40, at the annular end 48 on the outer side in the radial direction.” Daira [0039]. This clearly shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that changing the thickness of the valve portion can be used to alter the pressure required to break/rupture the safety valve.)
Daira is considered to be analogous to Sasaki because they are both within the same field of sealed batteries containing safety valves configured to break at a certain internal pressure. Therefore, the teachings of Daira demonstrate that one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would understand that it would be obvious to alter the thickness of the breaker valve in order to adjust the requisite internal pressure necessary for the safety valve to break.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20230395930 A1) in view of Inoue (JP 2016126989 A) and further in view of Daira (US 20240313305 A1)
Regarding claim 6, modified Sasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Sasaki additionally teaches the following elements of claim 6, with additional support from Daira:
The sealed battery according to claim 4, wherein the valve opening pressure is determined by a thickness of the thinnest portion. (Given that the breaker valve of Sasaki is configured to burst at a certain pressure, it would be determined by thickness of this portion. Barring a specific thickness or a specific bursting pressure claimed, this would inherently be true of the resin safety valve of Sasaki. Specification paragraph [0017] states “the breaking strength of the thinnest portion depends on the thickness of the thinnest portion. Hence, the valve opening pressure of the above-described sealed battery is determined by the thickness of the thinnest portion.” This would apply not only to the instantly claimed invention, but any other resin-based safety valve configured to break at a certain pressure as well, as the thickness/strength of the seal is a key factor in determining the pressure required to break the seal and release the valve. For an example of a similar device actively adjusting the thickness of a valve to optimize the valve opening pressure, see US 20240313305 A1, which states “ A first pressure at which the sealing plate 27 as the safety valve ruptures can be adjusted, for example, with a thickness of the annular end 39 of the inclined portion 27c on the outer side in the radial direction. A second pressure at which the inversion portion 43 is inverted can be adjusted, for example, with a thickness, of the tapered portion 43a of the bottom 40, at the annular end 48 on the outer side in the radial direction.” Daira [0039]. This clearly shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that changing the thickness of the valve portion can be used to alter the pressure required to break/rupture the safety valve.)
Daira is considered to be analogous to Sasaki because they are both within the same field of sealed batteries containing safety valves configured to break at a certain internal pressure. Therefore, the teachings of Daira demonstrate that one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would understand that it would be obvious to alter the thickness of the breaker valve in order to adjust the requisite internal pressure necessary for the safety valve to break.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752