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
Claims 12-14 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/27/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11, 15, and 17-20 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 6-11, 18, and 20 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.
Claims 2 and 18 recite the limitation "the peripheral side of the connector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In view of one of the embodiments in the instant application, for the purposes of examination, “the peripheral side” is being interpreted as the side of the connector facing the pressure relief piece.
Claims 6 and 20 recite the limitation "the overall solid content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. for the purposes of examination, “the overall solid content” is being interpreted as “an overall solid content”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the size". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. for the purposes of examination, “the size” is being interpreted as “a size”.
claim 8 recites the limitation "the thickness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. for the purposes of examination, “the thickness” is being interpreted as “a thickness”.
claim 9 recites the limitation "the thickness" twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. for the purposes of examination, “the thickness ” in both cases is being interpreted as “a thickness”.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the use of the word “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear where the boundaries of the claim lie and if the following language is being included as a necessary part of the claim limitations. For the purposes of examination everything after preferably in claims 10 and 11 is not being considered as required.
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) 1-3, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120034513 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20180198108 A1, present in the IDS filed 09/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kim in fig. 1 teaches a cap assembly for a battery, 160, with a connector, 164, that has a center portion, 164a, a peripheral portion, not labelled but shown to be present, and a transition portion. Further, the center portion is in contact with a safety vent to form a current interrupt device (Kim 0063). The safety vent in this case is used to relieve pressure and can be called a pressure relief piece which is located outside of a cell with respect to the connector and is electrically connected via the current interrupt device which disconnects the electrical connection when an excessive pressure is present (Kim 0059). Further, Kim teaches an insulating washer, 163 in fig. 1, which is present on the peripheral part of the connector. Kim is silent to coating the peripheral and transition part of the connector on at least one side prompting one to look at art that teaches insulating the connector piece from the pressure relief piece. Yoon teaches a current interrupt device for a battery which has an insulative coating layer on the periphery portion as well as portions of the top and bottom of the device for the purpose of securing the electrical insulation property of the CID (Yoon 0092, 0096, fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the connector of Kim, which acts as the current interrupt device at the connection point, and further insulate the edges with a coating as discussed in Yoon so that the connection is properly terminated even if the gasket is separated or otherwise detached (Yoon 0020).
PNG
media_image1.png
102
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above and Yoon teaches the coating is on the edge and both sides of the connector (Yoon fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above and Yoon further teaches the coating can be silicon (Yoon 0092).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to explicitly teaching a variation in the thickness of the coating layer depending on position. Yoon does teach, however, that the coating layer can have an embossed structure which improves adhesiveness and prevents the gasket (washer) from rupturing (Yoon fig. 11, 0035). This embossed structure can be considered part of the coating layer and shows that a thickness of the transition portion is smaller than a thickness of the peripheral portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery cap of Kim in view of Yoon as described in claim 1 and add the embossed structure to the peripheral and transition portions of the coating in order to improve adhesiveness and prevent the gasket from deteriorating.
PNG
media_image2.png
205
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above and Kim teaches through holes in the transition portion of the connector (Kim 0062, labelled 164b in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above and Kim teaches the cap assembly is on a battery (Kim fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in fig. 1 teaches a cap assembly for a battery, 160, with a connector, 164, that has a center portion, 164a, a peripheral portion, not labelled but shown to be present, and a transition portion. Further, the center portion is in contact with a safety vent to form a current interrupt device (Kim 0063). The safety vent in this case is used to relieve pressure and can be called a pressure relief piece which is located outside of a cell with respect to the connector and is electrically connected via the current interrupt device which disconnects the electrical connection when an excessive pressure is present (Kim 0059). Further, Kim teaches an insulating washer, 163 in fig. 1, which is present on the peripheral part of the connector. Kim is silent to coating the peripheral and transition part of the connector on at least one side prompting one to look at art that teaches insulating the connector piece from the pressure relief piece. Yoon teaches a current interrupt device for a battery which has an insulative coating layer on the periphery portion as well as portions of the top and bottom of the device for the purpose of securing the electrical insulation property of the CID (Yoon 0092, 0096, fig. 7). Further, Yoon teaches that the coating layer can have an embossed structure which improves adhesiveness and prevents the gasket (washer) from rupturing (Yoon fig. 11, 0035). This embossed structure shows that a thickness of the transition portion is smaller than a thickness of the peripheral portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the connector of Kim, which acts as the current interrupt device at the connection point, and further insulate the edges with a coating as discussed in Yoon so that the connection is properly terminated even if the gasket is separated or otherwise detached as well as add the embossed structure to the peripheral and transition portions of the coating in order to improve adhesiveness and prevent the gasket from deteriorating.
PNG
media_image1.png
102
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
205
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 17 as described above and Yoon teaches the coating is on the edge and both sides of the connector (Yoon fig. 7).
Claim(s) 4-8, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120034513 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20180198108 A1, present in the IDS filed 09/17/2025) and further in view of Tang et al. (US 20150155538 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 3 as described above but is silent to the inorganic coating comprising a binding agent and a solvent. Tang teaches an electrical insulation coating layer for a battery that resists heat and prevents melting (Tang 0004). Tang further teaches that the inorganic microparticles present in the coating can be a metal oxide (Tang 0004) and further goes and teaches aluminum oxide as a microparticle to be used in the insulation layer (Tang 0041). Tang further uses a binder (Tang 0065) and a solvent (Tang 0174, water is a solvent and is known in the art) for the electrical insulating layer and the binder can be polyvinylidene fluoride which is used to bind the aluminum oxide particles together (Tang 0065). While the coating of Tang is not directed to a connector of a battery cap specifically, the use in both scenarios, to insulate a substrate, are the same and it is obvious to substitute a known composition in a different invention for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the insulating coating of Yoon for the insulating coating of Tang with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so means the coating is more resistant to heat and melting, see MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Yoon and Tang teaches claim 4 as described above and Tang further teaches that the amount of the microparticles based on the total weight of the electrical insulation layer is preferably 5 to 100% by weight (Tang 0067) which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of an overall solid content of 40-70% and is obvious in view of routine experimentation in order to properly insulate the substrate, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Yoon and Tang teaches claim 4 as described above and Tang further teaches that the inorganic particles are between .5 and 40 micrometers which significantly overlaps with the instant application’s range of .3 to 5 micrometers and is obvious in view of routine experimentation in order to properly insulate the substrate, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the thickness of the insulating coating. Tang teaches an electrical insulation coating layer for a battery (Tang 0004). While Tang is not directed to a connector of a battery cap specifically, the use in both scenarios, to insulate a substrate, are the same and it is obvious to substitute a known composition in a different invention for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.07. Tang further teaches that the thickness of the insulation on a substrate can be between 1 and 100 micrometers which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of a thickness of the insulating coating of 20 to 100 micrometers and is obvious in view of routine experimentation in order to properly insulate the substrate, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kim in view of Yoon teaches claim 17 as described above but is silent to a binding agent and a solvent. Tang teaches an electrical insulation coating layer for a battery (Tang 0004). While Tang is not directed to a connector of a battery cap specifically, the use in both scenarios, to insulate a substrate, are the same and it is obvious to substitute a known composition in a different invention for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.07. Tang teaches that the inorganic microparticles can be a metal oxide (Tang 0004) and further goes and teaches aluminum oxide as a microparticle to be used in the insulation layer (Tang 0041). Tang further uses a binder (Tang 0065) and a solvent (Tang 0174, water is a solvent and is known in the art) for the electrical insulating layer and the binder can be polyvinylidene fluoride which is used to bind the aluminum oxide particles together (Tang 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery cap of Kim in view of Yoon and simply replace the insulation coating of Yoon with the insulation coating described in Tang as doing so means the coating is more resistant to heat and melting (Tang 0004). Tang further teaches that the amount of the microparticles based on the total weight of the electrical insulation layer is preferably 5 to 100% by weight (Tang 0067) which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of an overall solid content of 40-70% and is obvious in view of routine experimentation in order to properly insulate the substrate, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120034513 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20180198108 A1, present in the IDS filed 09/17/2025) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20180123163 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Yoon teach claim 1 as described above but are silent to welding the connector to the pressure relief piece. Park teaches welding the CID filter (connector) to the safety vent protrusion (pressure relief piece) (Park 0074). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery cap of Kim in view of Yoon and weld the connector to the pressure relief piece in order to fix the connector in place so it does not shift around (Park 0074).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights