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
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)(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 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Sode et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0196188 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Sode et al. teach a safety valve having a thickness partially reduced (explosion-proof valve 4, Fig.1 and Figs.2A and 2B; [0008]) in a battery case (P, Figure 1), comprising:
a flat part (central elevation 42, Fig.2A and Fig.2B); and
a groove (region between central elevation 42 and first ridge 43, Figs.2B and 3) formed around the flat part and being concave toward the inside of the battery case. Image 1 is provided to point out the structure of the prior art, with annotations indicating specific features.
PNG
media_image1.png
335
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1 — Figure 2B from Sode et al., marked up for comparison to instant application.
As for the part of claim 1, “wherein when an 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,” the structure of the prior art performs the claimed functions since the structure of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same. Applicant is advised to see MPEP 2112.01 Section 1 about product and apparatus claims—when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It follows that claim 8 is anticipated as well—given that Sode discloses the aforementioned safety valve in a battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Sode et al teach the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein: the groove includes an inner circumferential side (A, Image 2) connecting to the flat part, a bottom connecting to the inner circumferential side (B, Image 2), and an outer circumferential side connecting to the bottom (C, Image 2). Image 3 is provided below for ease of comparison.
PNG
media_image2.png
335
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2 — Figure 2B from Sode et al., marked up for comparison to instant application.
PNG
media_image3.png
288
792
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Image 3—Figure 5a from instant application provided for reference.
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. Applicant is advised to see MPEP 2112.01 Section 1 about product and apparatus claims—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, Sode et al. teach 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 (curved boundary D, Image 4), in the cross-sectional view passing through the central axis of the safety valve.
PNG
media_image4.png
369
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Image 4 — Figure 3 from Sode et al., marked up for comparison to instant application.
PNG
media_image5.png
288
792
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Image 5 — Figure 5a from instant application provided for reference; the red box outlines 136-1, indicated as the boundary of the outer circumferential side of the groove, having a curved shape without any corner.
Image 5 depicts the boundary of claim 3 with curved shape and with a part formed on an outer edge of the groove as described by the instant application. In comparison to Image 4, it is clear that Sode et al. teach the same structure described in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, Sode et al. teach the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein the safety valve (explosion-proof valve, 4) is formed at approximately center of a lid (battery case lid, 1) of the battery case in a longitudinal direction of a plane of the lid (clearly depicted in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sode et al. teach the safety valve according to claim 1, wherein the safety valve is formed in a storage of the battery case (P, Figure 1). The instant application refers to the storage 11 of battery case 1 in Figure 1, which is structurally analogous to the battery case P of the prior art. The difference in nomenclature does not impart structural differences between the battery case of instant application and the battery case of prior art.
Regarding Claim 9, Sode et al. teach a manufacturing method for the battery case lid including an explosion proof valve, comprising applying a pressure to the battery case in a thickness direction by using a shaping die to form the safety valve (Claims 5-13).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sode et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0196188 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sode et al. teach the safety valve according to claim 2. Sode et al. do 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. They also do 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, Sode et al. teach 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 (42, Fig.2A; [0057]). Sode et al. do 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Sode et al. teach a method of forming a safety valve having a thickness partially reduced in a battery case, comprising pushing an extending punch over an extending die having a recess.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamaki et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0091483 A1) teaches an aluminum alloy sheet for battery lids for molding integrated explosion-prevention valve
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. 8:00am-5pm.
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