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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitamura et al. (JP H06215746 A, hereinafter "Mitamura").
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Mitamura teaches a battery with a safety valve having a thickness partially reduced in a battery case, comprising:
a flat part (see annotated figures 2 and 4a below); and
a groove (an annular groove, see annotated figures 2 and 4a below) formed around the flat part and being concave toward the inside of the battery case (see annotated figures 2 and 4a below)
wherein when an internal pressure of the battery case is increased, the groove is deformed to reduce its inside depth (paragraphs [0012] and [0015] of the translated description describe this deformation, and figure 4b below depicts the cracking and opening following deformation and inversion) and then, when the internal pressure of the battery case is equal to or higher than a predetermined explosion-proof pressure, a concave shape of the groove is reversed to protrude outward from the battery case, so that the groove is cracked and therefore opened (see annotated figure 4b, which depicts the annular groove inverting and then cracking, see paragraph [0023] as well for additional description of the mechanism).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
747
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 2, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein: the groove includes an inner circumferential side (see annotated figure 2 below) connecting to the flat part, a bottom connecting to the inner circumferential side (see annotated figure 2 below), and an outer circumferential side connecting to the bottom (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
242
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
As for the language of claim 2, “when the internal pressure of the battery case is raised, the groove is deformed to increase an angle formed by the outer circumferential side and the inner circumferential side around the bottom of the groove, in a cross-sectional view passing through a central axis of the safety valve,” the structure of the prior art performs the claimed functions since the structure of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same. MPEP 2112.01 Section 1 states, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding Claim 3, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 2, wherein a boundary of the outer circumferential side of the groove with a part formed on an outer edge of the groove has a curved shape without any corner (see annotated figure 4a below), in the cross-sectional view passing through the central axis of the safety valve.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4a
Regarding Claim 7, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein the safety valve is formed in a storage of the battery case (see annotated figure 4a below, the metal safety valve 1 is formed in a storage of the battery case 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
393
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4a
Claim 9 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitamura (JP H06215746 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 2.
Mitamura does not specifically teach this valve wherein, in the cross-sectional view passing through the central axis of the safety valve, an angle formed by the outer circumferential side and the inner circumferential side of the grove is -45 degrees to 60 degrees. He also does not teach an angular range for the angle formed by the flat part and the inner circumferential side from 45 degrees to 135 degrees.
However, In re Dailey shows that the courts have held that “the configuration of [the claimed product or apparatus] are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04, IV).
Regarding Claim 5, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein the flat part has one of an approximately circular shape in a plan view of the flat part (see figure 2). Mitamura does not teach an approximately elliptical shape in a plan view of the flat part; however, applicant is reminded of In re Dailey. Please see MPEP 2144.04, IV about changes in shape.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitamura (JP H06215746 A) in view of Sode et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0196188 A1, hereinafter "Sode").
Regarding Claim 6, Mitamura teaches the safety valve according to claim 1.
Mitamura does not teach wherein the safety valve is formed at approximately center of a lid of the battery case in a longitudinal direction of a plane of the lid.
However, Sode teaches a safety valve of similar structure wherein the safety valve is formed at approximately center of a lid of the battery case in a longitudinal direction of a plane of the lid (clearly depicted in figure 1, also described in paragraph [0024]).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Additionally, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lid of Sode to have the safety valve of Mitamura, as the respective functions of each part are unchanged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 4,5, and 9 under 25 USC 102(a)(2) or 103 in view of Sode have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly cited Mitamura reference (JP H06215746 A). As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1-3 and 7-9 is anticipated by Mitamura, claims 4-5 are either anticipated or found obvious by the teachings of Mitamura, and claim 6 is found obvious by Mitamura in view of Sode.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-9 stand rejected.
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 ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights