DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), filed June 15, 2023 and October 16, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 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.
5. Claims 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uh US PG Publication 2009/0068550.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Uh discloses a battery cell comprising housing 200 provided with an opening (Fig. 1), an electrode assembly 300 accommodated in the housing (meeting Claim 12), and an end cap 100 of a battery cell comprising a first recess recessed from a side of the end cap facing toward an electrode assembly 300 of the battery cell in a direction away from the electrode assembly (see annotated Fig 3 - below - of Uh for all structure described herein), a second recess recessed from a side of the end cap facing away from the electrode assembly 300 in a direction toward the electrode assembly, wherein the entire upper surface of safety vent 110 is the bottom wall of the second recess and the entire lower surface of the safety vent 110 is the bottom wall of the first recess, wherein the bottom wall of the second recess comprises a first part and a second part surrounding an outer side of the first part, and the first part and a bottom wall of the first recess are arranged opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the end cap 100, and a pressure relief portion formed between the first part and the bottom wall of the first recess, wherein the pressure relief portion is configured to be actuated, in response to an internal pressure of the battery cell reaching a threshold, to relieve the internal pressure, and a side of the second part facing away from the electrode assembly forms an avoidance space to avoid the pressure relief portion when the pressure since there is a gap that would inherently provide some avoidance of the pressure relief portion (lacking further definition in the claim of “avoid the pressure relief portion”) (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0034-0047).
Regarding Claim 2, Uh teaches wherein at least one of the bottom wall of the recess or a bottom wall of the first part is provided with a third recess (the third recess is provided in both, i.e. grooves) 112 and the pressure relief portion is configured to be broken at the third recess to relieve the internal pressure in response to the internal pressure of the battery cell reaching the threshold (see e.g. paras 0039-0043).
Regarding Claim 3, the skilled artisan would understand that the structure of Uh would be capable of fracturing at one of the third recesses 12 (there are three 12s shown in the figures) and the pressure coming from the electrode assembly would fold the thinned structure into the second recess as a normal part of the fracturing process.
Regarding Claim 4, the figures of Uh show that a projection of the third recess 12 in thickness direction has portions that are linear, U-shaped, and ring-shaped.
Regarding Claim 11, it is clear from the cross-sectional views of e.g. Fig. 6 that the end cap is an integrally formed structure (hatching is consistent across the plane of the end cap).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
916
media_image1.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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uh US PG Publication 2009/0068550, as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Kim KR2006-0020211.
Regarding Claim 5, Uh discloses the claimed end cap as described in the rejection of Claim 2, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. The figures of Uh show that the third recess 12 (three 12s are shown) is ring-shaped and comprises a first sub-recess 12 and a second sub-recess 12 that are continuously provided along a circumference of the third recess. Uh does not specifically disclose wherein a depth of the first sub-recess is greater than a depth of the second sub-recess so that when the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches the threshold, the pressure relief portion is broken at the first sub-recess and folded along a bottom of the second recess. However, in the same field of endeavor of safety vent design for batteries, Kim discloses wherein a safety vent design includes notches formed to have different depths so that a first notch 434 is less deep than second notch 436 so that when pressurized gas exceeding a second critical pressure presses the vent, the second deeper-cut notch 436 is cut off and the first notch 434 works together with the second notch to allow the indentation 432 to be lifted up (folded) when pressurized gas below the second critical pressure acts on the safety vent and discusses that this differential allows for the vent to be lifted such that current can be cut off in the event of sufficiently high pressure (see entire disclosure and especially Fig 1 and p. 6 – highlighted text). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the end cap of Uh such that a depth of the first sub-recess is greater than a depth of the second sub-recess so that when the internal pressure of the battery cell reaches the threshold, the pressure relief portion is broken at the first sub-recess and folded along a bottom of the second recess because Kim teaches that this allows for the venting structure to respond to different internal pressures such that current can be cut off if needed (based on exceeding a second, higher internal pressure) for safety reasons.
7. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uh US PG Publication 2009/0068550, as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Byun US PG Publication 2011/0206957.
Regarding Claim 6, Uh discloses the claimed end cap as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. The figures of Uh show a body portion of the end cap comprising an inner surface facing toward the electrode assembly and opposite (in the thickness direction) an outer surface and discloses in e.g. Fig 6 a first protrusion protruding from the inner surface wherein the first recess is recessed from a top end face of the first protrusion in the direction away from the electrode assembly, but Uh does not specifically disclose a second protrusion protruding from the outer surface wherein the second recess is recessed from a top end face of the second protrusion in the direction toward the electrode assembly. However, in the same field of endeavor of safety vent design of batteries, Byun discloses a safety venting using a member 60 protruding from an outer surface S1 of the end cap 30 and/or an inner surface S2 of the end cap 30 (can be both) with the benefit that forming this structure around the vent helps to prevent deformation of the cap plate and the vent member (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-4 and paras 0045-0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the end cap of Uh such that the end cap includes a second protrusion protruding from the outer surface wherein the second recess is recessed from a top end face of the second protrusion in the direction toward the electrode assembly because Kim teaches that forming this structure around the vent protruding from both the top and bottom (either or both) helps to prevent deformation of the cap plate and the vent member.
Regarding Claim 7, the skilled artisan would understand that a second protrusion added to the outer surface of the end cap of Uh, which contains the second recess, would necessarily result in the second recess in the thickness direction being greater than a size of the second protrusion in the thickness direction since the second recess would extend from the top of the second protrusion to the bottom of the second recess, which is below the end cap plane level.
Regarding Claim 8, the skilled artisan would understand that a depth of the first recess of Uh in the thickness direction is less than a size of the first protrusion in the thickness direction so that the bottom wall of the first recess is closer to the electrode assembly than the inner surface because the first recess extends up into the end cap and so is necessarily deeper in the thgickness direction than the height of the inner surface above the electrode assembly. See Fig. 6.
Regarding Claim 9, Uh modified by Byun does not specifically disclose wherein in the thickness direction, a size of the first protrusion is greater than a size of the second protrusion. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the second protrusion to be less than a size of the first protrusion because the size of the second protrusion should be minimized to make the battery size as small as possible to maximize the volume capacity of the battery, while the first protrusion should be sufficiently large to carry out the desired benefit, stated above. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Uh discloses a connecting portion surround an outer side of the body portion and extending in the direction toward the electrode assembly to form a third recess on a side of the body portion face toward the electrode assembly (see peripheral portions at opposing ends of the end cap in Fig. 4, annotated Fig below), and discloses a plate portion surrounding an outer side of the connection portion, the third recess being recessed relative to a surface of the plate portion facing toward the electrode assembly. Modified Uh fails to specifically disclose wherein the first protrusion is accommodated in the third recess. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the end cap of Uh such that the first protrusion is accommodated in the third recess in order to form a more compact and secure connection between the end cap and its adjoining battery case since this would require a mere rearrangement of parts, which, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uh US PG Publication 2009/0068550, as applied to Claims 1 and 12, and further in view of Ebine US PG Publication 2010/0028759.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Uh discloses the claimed end cap in a battery (with all of the described battery structure) as described in the rejection of Claims 1 and 12, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Uh further discloses that the battery with the claimed end cap is an improvement over known devices that are used for portable electronic devices, electric bicycles and electric cars, etc. (paras 0005-0013) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include this battery in a device (meeting Claim 14) since the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Uh does not specifically disclose a battery having a case and receiving a battery cell described as the battery cell of Claim 12. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery safety venting device design, Ebine teaches that e.g. a battery intended to power an electric vehicle is part of a battery 775 that comprises a case that can hold many secondary battery cells to power the vehicle (see Fig. 22) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include this battery in a vehicle grouped in a case with other batteries to provide the appropriate power to the vehicle since Uh teaches the battery’s use in a vehicle and Ebine teaches that multiple battery cells are included together in the case of a battery. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsudo JP2014-102935 discloses a end cap having a pressure release valve with recesses and protrusions as claimed (see fig below and all related text in the disclosure).
PNG
media_image3.png
290
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729