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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/14/2026 have been entered and will be considered on the merits.
The cancellation of claim 2 overcomes the prior 112(b) rejection of record for both claim 2 and subsequent dependent claim 3 and the 112(b) rejection is therefore withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 6 and 8 overcome the prior 112(b) rejection of record and the 112(b) rejection is therefore withdrawn.
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, 3-8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun (US 20110206957 A1) in view of Cook et al. (US 20060292436 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Byun teaches a cap plate for a battery with a body portion that contains a vent hole with walls (pressure release groove) for the purpose of releasing excess pressure and forms a pressure relief zone (Fig. 3, 0007 0054). Further, Byun teaches that a portion of the vent hole is in the same direction as the width of the cap body and can be called the length direction (Fig. 3). Byun is silent to the exact dimensions of the cap body and the pressure relief groove. The limitation effectively requires an edge of the pressure relief groove to be within the first or last quarter of the width of the cap body. Cook teaches a battery with a venting mechanism where the venting mechanism can be located anywhere on the battery enclosure (Cook 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pressure relief groove of Byun could be moved anywhere along the cap body, such as overlapping with the first or last quarter of the width, as necessary to allow for a controlled release of emissions (Cook 0048). In addition, as the ratio of a distance from the pressure relief groove to an edge of the cap body to a width of the cap body is dependent upon the size of the battery case the cap body is attached to, the ratio can be changed at will as a function of a simple change in size/proportion with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding 3, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 1 as described above and is rejected under the same reasoning, the limitation effectively requires an edge of the pressure relief groove to be within the first or last quarter of the width of the cap body. Cook teaches a battery with a venting mechanism where the venting mechanism can be located anywhere on the battery enclosure (Cook 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pressure relief groove of Byun could be moved anywhere along the cap body, such as overlapping with the first or last quarter of the width, as necessary to allow for a controlled release of emissions (Cook 0048). In addition, as the ratio of a distance from the pressure relief groove to an edge of the cap body to a width of the cap body is dependent upon the size of the battery case the cap body is attached to, the ratio can be changed at will as a function of a simple change in size/proportion with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 1 as described above and Byun further teaches that the pressure relief groove is in the center of the cap body and is therefore equidistant from all edges of the cap body (fig. 1). The actual distance, and therefore the claimed ratio, is taught to be changeable by cook in the same way as described above and any change is a function of a simple change in size/proportion with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claim 5, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 1 as described above and Byun further teaches that there is a protrusion portion of the cap body in a thickness direction that contains the pressure relief groove and has a distance between the protrusion and the edge of the cap body (Figs. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 5 as described above and the limitation effectively requires an edge of the protrusion to be within the first or last quarter of the width of the cap body. Cook teaches a battery with a venting mechanism where the venting mechanism can be located anywhere on the battery enclosure (Cook 0048). As the protrusion of Byun is directly surrounding the pressure relief groove, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pressure relief groove, and therefore the protrusion, of Byun could be moved anywhere along the cap body, such as overlapping with the first or last quarter of the width, as necessary to allow for a controlled release of emissions (Cook 0048). In addition, as the ratio of the distance from the protrusion to the edge of the cap body to the width of the cap body is dependent upon the size of the battery case the cap body is attached to, the ratio can be changed at will as a function of a simple change in size/proportion with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claim 7, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 5 as described above and Byun further teaches that the pressure relief groove, and the protrusion surrounding it, is in the center of the cap body and is therefore equidistant from all edges of the cap body (fig. 1). The actual distance, and therefore the claimed ratio, is taught to be changeable by cook in the same way as described above and any change is a function of a simple change in size/proportion with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claim 8, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 5 as described above and Byun further teaches a recess that is at all ends of the protrusion with the pressure relief groove on a bottom face of the recess (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
245
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Byun In view of Cook teaches claim 1 as described above and Byun further teaches that the pressure relief groove is a closed groove where it connects to itself (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 1 as described above and Byun further teaches an electrode assembly surrounded by a battery case where the end plate closes off the cell case (abstract, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun (US 20110206957 A1) in view of Cook et al. (US 20060292436 A1) and further in view of Nemoto et al. (US 20100032039 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 8 as described above but is silent to the exact dimensions of the protrusion, pressure relief groove, and cap body. Nemoto teaches that batteries can have pressure release valve with slits in a rubber plate where the slits widen when an excessive amount of pressure is present (Nemoto 0047). Nemoto teaches that the diameter of the rubber plate is between 2 and 40 mm (Nemoto 0050, Fig. 3D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the respective plate and slit (Byun fig. 3 labelled 34 and 341) as present in modified Byun can be the same dimensions as taught by Nemoto in view of reducing production costs and allowing for downsizing (Nemoto 0050). In light of modified Byun, the diameter of the rubber plate coincides with a distance between one side of the recess to another side of the recess. A diameter of 2 mm in this case would fall within the claimed range as the difference between a distance from the pressure relief groove to the edge of the cap body and a distance from the recess to the edge of the cap body would be at least that of the diameter of the plate.
PNG
media_image4.png
249
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun (US 20110206957 A1) in view of Cook et al. (US 20060292436 A1) and further in view of Xu et al. (US 12555850 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 10 as described above and Byun further teaches that the pressure release groove is a closed groove and has four sections connected end to end with the first and third sections opposite each other being straight and the second and fourth sections opposite each other being curved or arc-shaped (Byun fig. 3). Fig. 3 also clearly shows that the shortest distance between the second and fourth section is larger than the longest distance between the first and third section. Modified Byun is silent to changing the orientation of the pressure relief groove so that the linear grooves are parallel with the width direction of the cap body as well as the distance between grooves in the width direction of the cap body being larger than the distance between grooves in the length direction of the cap body. Xu teaches an explosion proof sheet inside an explosion proof hole (groove) for a battery where the linear sections of the hole are parallel with the width direction of the cap body. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the pressure relief groove of modified Byun and turn it 90o so that linear sections one and three are parallel with the width direction of the cap body as doing so means that pressure discharge of the battery is more balanced during pressure release, and the usage safety of the battery is further improved (Xu, fig. 1 and page 9 column 3 line 62). This change in orientation also cures the previously stated deficiency of the distance between grooves in the width direction of the cap body being larger than the distance between grooves in the length direction of the cap body.
PNG
media_image5.png
258
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun in view of Cook et al. (US 20060292436 A1) and further in view of Tanaka (US 20160362018 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Byun in view of Cook teaches claim 14 as described above and modified Byun further teaches that a plurality of battery units can be connected to form a battery module but is silent to then putting the battery module in a case to form a battery with a case containing the battery units. Tanaka teaches a housing for a battery pack in a vehicle, which can be called a power consuming device (Tanaka, abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to take the plurality of battery units as taught by modified Byun and put them together in a housing for protection purposes as well as use it in a car to provide power.
Regarding claim 16, modified Byun teaches claim 15 as described above and Tanaka further teaches that there is a bottom face of the housing (Tanaka 0054). Modified Byun in view of Tanaka is silent to the orientation of the batteries within the housing but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the batteries can be in any orientation, such as with the end cap facing down, as desired in order to improve further connections with expected results as a matter of simple rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04.V.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “a length”, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, cannot be the smaller of the two distances in respect to the pressure relief zone and points to the instant specification paragraphs 0065 and 0067 which discuss exemplary figures 4 and 5 as support. This argument is unpersuasive as instant paragraph 0037 specifies that “It should be understood that the dimensions, such as thickness, length and width, of the various components in the embodiments of the present application illustrated in the accompanying drawings, as well as the dimensions, such as an overall thickness, length and width, of an integrated apparatus are merely illustrative and should not be construed to limit the present application in any way.” As the support that the length must be longer than the width is based on a figure, it cannot limit the claims in view of instant paragraph 0037. In view of this interpretation, “a length” as stated in the claim can be any distance in any direction regardless of the overall shape. Further, the specifics of the shape defined in the instant specification is not germane to the product as claimed, the claim does not require any particular alignment or shape of the groove itself except for the existence of “a length” in the width direction of the cap body. The argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, applicant argues that, due to dependency from claim 1, claim 2 and 3 are not taught and further cites the instant specification for support on the specific shape. This argument is unpersuasive due to the argument regarding claim 1 being unpersuasive. Further, the specifics of the shape defined in the instant specification is not germane to the product as claimed, the claim does not require any particular alignment or shape of the groove itself except being present, in any shape or form, at the claimed position. No argument was directed to the modification of cook that allows the pressure relief groove to be anywhere, including the claimed position, in order to have a controlled release of emissions. The argument is unpersuasive.
The arguments regarding claims 3-17 are unpersuasive due to the argument regarding claim 1 being unpersuasive as described above.
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 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 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights