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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 7, 2026:
Claims 1-3,5-11,13 and 15-16 are pending. Claims 4, 12 and 14 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudiger et al. (DE102018207327A) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0074963) and Park et al. (US 2019/0379011), He et al. (US 2021/0175572) and Zhao et al. (US 2022/0013855).
Regarding Claim 1, Rudiger et al. teaches a storage device which may be a lithium-ion battery (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising an electrode winding (Fig. 2, #14) (i.e. an electrode assembly), a cell housing (Fig. 2, #12) (i.e. a case) accommodating the electrode winding, the case having side walls (Fig. 2, #18 and #19) formed separately from the upper wall (Fig. 2, #21), lower wall (Fig. 2, #22), front wall (Fig. 2, #15) and rear wall (Fig. 2, #16), wherein the respective side walls are referred to as covers and can be bonded to the upper, lower, front and rear wall (Para. [0036]) (i.e. and having a first side opening corresponding to the first side of the electrode assembly, and a second side opening corresponding to the second side of the electrode assembly), and thus comprising a first side wall (Fig. 2, #18) (i.e. a first cap plate sealing the first side opening of the case) and a second side wall (Fig. 2, #19) (i.e. second cap plate sealing the second side opening of the case) a connecting element (Fig. 2, #6) exposed to the outside of the first side wall, wherein the connection element is a terminal (Para. [0009]) (i.e. a first terminal exposed to an outside of the first cap plate) and a connecting element (Fig. 2, #7) exposed to the outside of the second side wall, wherein the connection element is a terminal (Para. [0009]) (i.e. a second terminal exposed to an outside of the second cap plate) and at least one through-opening (Fig. 2, #31) (i.e. a plurality of safety vents on one surface of the case).
Rudiger et al. does not teach a first electrode tab exposed at a first side and a second electrode tab exposed at a second side, the first electrode tab electrically connected to a first terminal and the second electrode tab electrically connected to a second terminal.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a secondary battery (Fig. 1, #1) comprising an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, #200) having a first electrode tab exposed at a first side (Fig. 1, #210) and a second electrode tab exposed at a second side (Fig. 1, #220) (Para. [0045]), wherein the two electrode terminals are for realizing electrical connection with an internal wiring portion for realizing electrical connection with the tabs (Para. [0049] and both are electrically connected to electrode terminals (Fig. 1, #21 and #41) (Para. [0049] and [0073]) (i.e. a first terminal electrically connected to the first electrode tab and a second terminal electrically connected to the second electrode tab).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first and second electrode tabs as taught by Zhang et al., as such a structure provides improved energy density by improving space utilization inside the case and connection stability is ensured promoting the use reliability of the battery (Para. [0071]).
Rudiger et al. does not teach wherein the plurality of safety vents comprises only a first safety vent and a second safety vent spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the case.
However, Park et al. teaches a rechargeable battery (Para. [0041]) (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising a case (Fig. 2, #110) comprising a cap plate (Fig. 2, #115) wherein the cap plate comprises two vent portions (Fig. 2, #160) (i.e. wherein a plurality of safety vents comprises only a first safety vent and a second safety vent spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the case on a same surface of the case).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of a plurality of safety vents comprises only a first safety vent and a second safety vent spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the case as taught by Park et al., as such a structure may effectively suppress occurrence of a rupture due to an excessive increase of internal pressure at any side of the cap plate (i.e. at any side of the case in the longitudinal direction) (Para. [0052]).
Rudiger et al. does not teach a length of the case in the longitudinal direction is twice or more than a length of the case in a height direction.
However, He et al. teaches a rectangular lithium-ion cell (Para. [0085]) (i.e. a secondary battery) wherein the rectangular cell has a length L, a height of H wherein an explosion-proof valve (Fig. 2, #103) is located the side extending in the height direction (i.e. equivalent to a length in a longitudinal direction as claimed), 600mm ≤ L ≤ 2500 mm (Para. [0161]), 4≤L/H≤20 (Para. [0160]) and thus, 30 mm ≤ H ≤ 625 mm (i.e. range of a length of the longitudinal direction) and thickness D (i.e. height) wherein 23≤L/D≤200 and thus, 3 mm ≤ D ≤ 109 mm and the height H is between the length L and thickness D (i.e. the length in the longitudinal direction is greater than the length in a height direction, and at the very least overlapping with claimed range of twice or more than a length of the case in a height direction, e.g. if H = 500 mm and D = 100 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the dimensions as taught by He et al., as such dimensions provide enlarged heat disputation area, improving safety and use stability (Para. [0014]). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Rudiger et al. does not teach a cumulative area of the first safety vent and the second safety vent in a range from 300 mm2 to 900 mm2.
However, Zhao et al. teaches a pressure relief mechanism which can fracture to cause gas to be released to the outside through the fracture of the pressure relief mechanism (Para. [0087]) (i.e. a vent) wherein a total area of the pressure relief mechanism is 600 to 1400 mm2 (Para. [0028])) as the total area should not be too large considering the strength of the battery box and cannot be too small in order for the release of the internal gas pressure as soon as possible to prevent explosion of the battery (Para. [0029]). Thus, a total cumulative area of safety vents is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case, desirable strength and capability of releasing internal gas pressure as soon as possible) and modifying the cumulative area of the two safety vents of modified Rudiger et al. to achieve the claimed range would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success as Zhao et al. teaches an overlapping range for a battery box pressure relief mechanism.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 2, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. further teaches the cell casing (i.e. case) (Fig. 2, #12) comprising a lower wall (Fig. 2, #22) (i.e. a rectangular lower surface extending in a longitudinal direction), an upper wall (Fig. 2, #21) (i.e. a rectangular upper surface extending along the longitudinal direction and facing the rectangular lower surface), and a front wall (Fig. 2, #15) and a back wall (Fig. 2, #16) (i.e. two long side surfaces connecting long sides of the rectangular upper surface and the rectangular lower surface).
Regarding Claim 3, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al. and He et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. further teaches the cell casing (i.e. case) (Fig. 2, #12) having a parallelepiped shape, and wherein the lower wall (Fig. 2, #22) and the upper wall (Fig. 2, #21) can be formed in one piece with the front and back wall (Fig. 2, #15 and #16) (Para. [0034]) (i.e. wherein the rectangular lower surface, the rectangular upper surface, and the two long side surfaces are integral).
Regarding Claim 5, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach wherein each of the first safety vent and the second safety vent comprises a notch having a smaller thickness than other regions of the first safety vent and the second safety vent.
However, Park et al. teaches each vent portions comprises a second notch having a depth that is smaller than that of a first notch (Para. [0015]) (i.e. each of the first safety vent and the second safety vent comprises a notch having a smaller thickness than other regions of the first safety vent and the second safety vent).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the two vent portions each comprising a second notch having a depth that is smaller than that of a first notch as such a structure may effectively suppress occurrence of a rupture due to an excessive increase of internal pressure at any side of the cap plate (i.e. at any side of the case in the longitudinal direction) (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach wherein a shape and a thickness of the notch of the first safety vent are same as those of the notch of the second safety vent.
Zhang et al. further teaches two safety vent portions (Fig. 2, #160) comprising notches having the same shape and thickness (see Fig. 2) (i.e. wherein a shape and a thickness of the notch of the first safety vent are same as those of the notch of the second safety vent).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the two vent portions teach wherein a shape and a thickness of the notch of the first safety vent are same as those of the notch of the second safety vent as such a structure may effectively suppress occurrence of a rupture due to an excessive increase of internal pressure at any side of the cap plate (i.e. at any side of the case in the longitudinal direction) (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches the two vent portions (Fig. 5, #160, bottom image) (i.e. wherein the first safety vent and the second safety vent) have an elongated circular shape extending in the longitudinal direction. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Park et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 10, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches the two vent portions (Fig. 4, #160, top image) (i.e. wherein the first safety vent and the second safety vent) have widths greater than a width of the case in a region including the first safety vent and the second safety vent. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Park et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 11, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach the first terminal comprises: a first inner terminal plate inside the first cap plate; a first outer terminal plate outside the first cap plate; and a first terminal pillar coupled to the first inner terminal plate from the inside of the first cap plate and penetrating the first cap plate and coupled to the first outer terminal plate from the outside of the first cap plate.
However, Zhang et al. teaches an electrode terminal comprising a connection plate (Fig. 8, #214) serving as the external wiring portions of the electrode terminal, outside the top cover plate (Fig. 8, #10) (i.e. a first outer terminal plate outside the first cap plate) (Para. [0076]), and a bottom portion (Fig. 8, #213b) disposed on a side of the top cover plate facing the electrode assembly (Para. [0076]) (i.e. a first inner terminal plate inside the first cap plate), and an elongation portion (Fig. 8, #213a) coupled to the bottom portion (i.e. a first terminal pillar coupled to the first inner terminal plate from the inside of the first cap plate) and extends into the electrode lead-out hole (Fig. 8, #11) and is exposed to outside through the through hole (Fig. 8, #214a) and rived to the connection plate (Para. [0076]) (i.e. and penetrating the first cap plate and coupled to the first outer terminal plate from the outside of the first cap plate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the electrode terminal structure of Zhang et al., as such a structure provides improved energy density by improving space utilization inside the case and connection stability is ensured promoting the use reliability of the battery (Para. [0071] and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 13, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Rudiger does not teach a first current collector electrically connecting the first electrode tab and the first terminal; and a second current collector electrically connecting the second electrode tab and the second terminal.
However, Zhang et al. further teaches a first and second current collecting wiring board (Fig. 6, #30) disposed between the electrode terminal and main body of the electrode assembly as a transitional connection member between the electrode terminal and the tab (Para. [0052]), disposed at a first terminal (Fig. 6, #21) and a second terminal (Fig. 6, #41) (i.e. a first current collector electrically connecting the first electrode tab and the first terminal; and a second current collector electrically connecting the second electrode tab and the second terminal).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first current collector and second current collector as taught by Zhang et al., as such a structure provides improved energy density by improving space utilization inside the case and connection stability is ensured promoting the use reliability of the battery (Para. [0071]).
Regarding Claim 15, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach the case has a longitudinal length of 300 mm or more.
However, He et al. teaches a rectangular lithium-ion cell (Para. [0085]) (i.e. a secondary battery) wherein the rectangular cell has a length L, a height of H wherein an explosion-proof valve (Fig. 2, #103) is located the side extending in the height direction (i.e. H is equivalent to a length in a longitudinal direction as claimed), 600mm ≤ L ≤ 2500 mm (Para. [0161]), 4≤L/H≤20 (Para. [0160]) and thus, 30 mm ≤ H ≤ 625 mm (i.e. range of a length of the longitudinal direction is overlapping with the claimed longitudinal length of 300 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the H (i.e. longitudinal length) as taught by He et al., as such dimensions provide enlarged heat disputation area, improving safety and use stability (Para. [0014]). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 16, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches the case having the opened side may be a bottom surface of the case (Para. [0044]) wherein the opened side contains the cap plate including the plurality of vent portions (Para. [0045], [0046]) (i.e. wherein the plurality of safety vents is formed on a lower surface of the case).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the two vent portions formed on a lower surface of the case as taught by Par et al. as such a structure may effectively suppress occurrence of a rupture due to an excessive increase of internal pressure at any side of the cap plate (i.e. at any side of the case in the longitudinal direction) (Para. [0052]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudiger et al. (DE102018207327A) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0074963) and Park et al. (US 2019/0379011), He et al. (US 2021/0175572) and Zhao et al. (US 2022/0013855) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0214619).
Regarding Claim 7, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach the notch includes a central slit extending in the longitudinal direction and additional slits extending outward at a predetermined angle from both ends of the central slit.
However, Li et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a top cover assembly comprising a vent (Para. [0023]) wherein the vent comprises a main nick (Fig. 4, #20844a) extending in a longitudinal direction of the vent (Para. [0072]) (i.e. a notch includes a central slit extending in the longitudinal direction, see also Fig. 3) and branch nicks (Fig. 4, #20844b) formed at an angle with the main nick (Para. [0072] and [0079]) (i.e. and additional slits extending outward at a predetermined angle from both ends of the central slit).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of notches including a central slit extending in the longitudinal and additional slits extending outward at a predetermined angle from both ends of the central slit as taught by Li et al., as such a notch structure in the vent would shorten time of the exhaust of the case improving the safety of the secondary battery (Para. [0079]).
Regarding Claim 8, Rudiger et al. as modified by Zhang et al., Park et al., He et al., Zhao et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Rudiger et al. does not teach wherein the additional slits include two additional slits extending obliquely from one end of the central slit and two additional slits extending obliquely from another end of the central slit.
However, Li et al. further teaches both ends of the main nick comprise two branch nicks (Para. [0078]) , the two branch nicks (Fig. 4, #20844b) disposed at a same end of the main nick can be arranged symmetrically (Para. [0079]) (i.e. wherein the additional slits include two additional slits extending obliquely from one end of the central slit and two additional slits extending obliquely from another end of the central slit).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rudiger et al. to incorporate the teaching of the additional slits include two additional slits extending obliquely from one end of the central slit and two additional slits extending obliquely from another end of the central slit as taught by Li et al., as such a notch structure in the vent would shorten time of the exhaust of the case improving the safety of the secondary battery (Para. [0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed two safety vents and a cumulative vent area in a range of 300 to 900 mm2 unexpectedly outperformed comparative secondary batteries having the same cumulative vent area but with only one safety vent and three safety vents and thus achieves unexpected results.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, applicant appears to be arguing unexpected results. However, the burden to show unexpected results, as required by MPEP 716.02 has not been provided. Examiner suggests Applicant review MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden that must be met to show unexpected results. For example, the unexpected result has not established that results are unexpected and significant as it unclear how the lower internal pressure of 17.5 kgf/cm2 for the two vent battery with a cumulative area of 600 mm2 is a statistically significant improvement of the three vent battery which has an internal pressure of 17.7 kgf/cm2, -i.e. a 0.2 kgf/cm2 difference. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended limitation (the cumulative area) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
