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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “smoothly” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guen (US 20200091570 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guen teaches a battery cell ([0006, secondary battery 100]) comprising:
a case ([0006], case 140);
a cap plate covering the case([0006], cap plate 151);
a pop-up pressure indicator that protrudes out when pressure in the case increases ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124).
Regarding claim 20, Guen teaches a battery device ([0006], secondary battery 100, Fig. 6, battery module 10) comprising:
A plurality of battery cells ([0071], Fig. 6, battery module 10)
A device housing for battery cells ([0006])
One battery cell ([0006], secondary battery 100) of the plurality includes:
A case for an electrode assembly ([0006], case 140)
A cap plate covering the case ([0006], cap plate 151)
A pop-up indicator protruding out when pressure in the case increases ([0006], pressure indicator pin 124)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen in further view of Kruppe (US 20210285567 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Guen teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pop-up pressure indicator with a housing. Kruppe teaches a pop-up pressure indicator ([0004], Fig. 1, indicator 100) that includes:
a housing for the indicator ([0030], Fig. 1, body 102);
The pop-up indicator going through the housing and outside of it ([0030], Fig. 1, piston 104).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a housing for the pop-up pressure indicator, as taught by Kruppe, because doing so would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and the mechanism disclosed by Kruppe is sufficiently similar and readily adaptable to use with the device of Guen.
Regarding claim 3, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches that the pop-up indicator moves up and down relative to the pressure inside the case ([0068]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pop-up indicator of Guen, which moves in response to pressure changes, in the modified device of claim 2, since such movement is inherent to pressure indicators and would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 6, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Guen fails to teach that the housing is fixed to the cap plate or the case. Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Regarding claim 7, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a cap plate that has a coupling hole that communicates with the internal space of the case ([0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pop-up pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cap plate with an opening that communicates with the internal space of the case as taught by Guen, to allow for a pop-up indicator to move in response to pressure changes inside the case. This would have been a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, and yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Guen fails to teach that the housing is fixed to the coupling hole on an external side of the cap plate. Kruppe teaches that an indicator may be threaded integrated or otherwise coupled to a cap ([0038]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by fixing the housing of the pop-up indicator to the coupling hole on the external side of the cap plate, since Guen provides a cap plate with an opening (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141) and Kruppe teaches that such indicator may be coupled (e.g., threaded or integrated) into a cap ([0038]). Such a modification would have been a simple and predictable use of known attachment techniques to secure the indicator to the structure.
Regarding claim 9, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Guen teaches a cap plate including a coupling hole (Fig. 3, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141 ). Guen fails to teach that the housing including a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed between the case and the electrode assembly. Kruppe teaches an indicator for use in a pressurized system having first and second body ends and being configured to be coupled to a cap (Claim 11, [0038]). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing an indicator having a first body fixed to the coupling hole and a second body disposed within the structure, since Guen provides the coupling hole and Kruppe teaches and indicator having a first and second body portions configured for placement within a pressurized system. Such an arrangement would have inherently resulted from coupling the indicator of Kruppe to the opening of Guen, yielding a predictable configuration.
Regarding claim 10, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches that a width portion of the housing opposing the case has a value greater than the thickness of a portion of housing disposed between the case and the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110, case 140, opening 141). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the width portion of the housing opposing the case would be greater than the thickness of the portion disposed between the case and the electrode assembly, because the housing must be dimensioned to accommodate and avoid interference with the internal components (e.g., the electrode assembly). Such relative sizing is an inherent result of arranging the housing within the confined space of the case while allowing proper operations of the internal components and necessary design considerations.
Regarding claim 11, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a battery cell ([0006], Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110) comprising:
a first side of the housing is fixed to the coupling hole (Fig. 3, case 140, 110, [0058], [0061], cap plate 151, case 140, opening 141);
a second side of housing disposed between the cap plate and the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, electrode assembly 110, case 140).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by having a battery cell, with the first side of the housing fixed to the coupling hold, and the second side of the housing between the cap plate and the electrode assembly. It is an inherent design choice of arranging the housing to allow for proper operations of the internal components, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a pop-up pressure indicator (Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124) that includes:
A pressure transmission part coupled to the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
Pressure transmission part that transmits pressure in the case to the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe to have a pressure transmission part that is coupled to the pop-up indicator to transmit the pressure inside the case, in order to ensure that internal pressure changes are effectively communicated to the indicator for accurate and reliable operation, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Additionally, Guen teaches a deformation part (Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124) that includes:
configured to deform depending on changes in pressure in the case ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
configured to move the pop-up indicator ([0008], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124);
that is fixed to each of the housing and the pop-up indicator 9 ([0007], Fig. 4-5, membrane 123, pressure indicator pin 124).
Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe to have a deformation part that changes in response to internal pressure of the case, moves the pop-up indicator in response, and is fixed to the housing and the pop-up indicator, since deformable members are used to respond to pressure changes and convert them into mechanical movement, thereby enabling actuation of the indicator in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 16, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pressure transmission part including a moveable part fixed to the pop-up indicator, configured to move in the housing depending on changes in pressure in the case, and configured to slide in the housing. However, Kruppe teaches a pressure transmission part including a moveable part fixed to the pop-up indicator ([0030-0031], piston 104, body 102), configured to move in the housing depending on changes in pressure in the case (Abstract, piston 104, body 102), and configured to slide in the housing depending on changes in pressure (Abstract. piston 104, body 102). Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by providing a pressure transmission part including a movable part fixed to the pop-up indicator that slides within a housing, since Guen already discloses a movable indicator ([0068], pressure indicator pin 124) responsive to pressure ([0068]) and Kruppe provides a known housing structure with sliding components. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of known mechanical structures to control movement of the indicator in response to pressure changes.
Regarding claim 17, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a housing that includes a stopper to limit movement of pressure transmission part. However, Kruppe teaches a pop-up pressure indicator having a housing with structural features that limit the movement of the moveable part ([0032], stop 118), which inherently functions as a stopper. Guen and Kruppe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Kruppe by including a stopper in the housing to limit the movement of the pressure transmission part, since Kruppe demonstrates a known mechanism in which movement is inherently constrained. Such a modification would have been predictable use of known mechanical features to prevent over-travel of the moveable component.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen and Kruppe, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Miller (US 20040025581 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pop-up indicator partitioned into regions to indicate pressure inside. Miller teaches a pop-up indicator partitioned into regions to indicate pressure inside ([0023], color coding). Guen and Miller are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pop-up pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Miller to partition the regions of the pop-up indicator into regions corresponding to different pressure levels a predictable variation of known pressure indicators, to provide graded or incremental feedback, yielding predictable results of improved monitoring.
Regarding claim 5, Guen and Miller teach all limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Guen fails to teach a pop-up indicator with regions that are visually distinct. Miller teaches a pop-up indicator with regions that are visually distinct ([0023], [0038], green color band 80, yellow color band 100, red color band 90). Guen and Miller are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to pop-up pressure indicators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Miller to make the partitions of the pop-up indictor visually distinct and corresponding to different pressure thresholds to allow a user to distinguish between normal, elevated, and critical pressure conditions, thereby enhancing safety and enabling earlier intervention, yielding predictable results of improved monitoring.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen and Kruppe, as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, in further view of Koutari et al. (US 20200136110 A1), herein after Koutari.
Regarding claim 18, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 17, as stated above. Guen teaches if the internal pressure of the battery is increased the membrane is brought into close contact with the bottom surface of the terminal region ([0067], membrane 123, terminal region 122]). However, Guen fails to teach a pressure transmission part including a burstable slide part the breaks when in contact with a stopper. Koutari teaches that a thin-welled portion can be make to break when the internal pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0036], thin wall portion 12). Guen and Koutari are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both relate to pressure-actuated components in batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Koutari to include a burstable slide part in the pressure transmission part, such that the part breaks upon contact with a stopper when the internal pressure exceeds a set value. This combination would have been a predictable use of known techniques to release gas at excessive pressure to ensure safe operation.
Regarding claim 19, Guen and Kruppe teach all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Guen teaches that when pressure inside the case is at or higher than certain pressure gases are released ([0067], membrane 123, terminal region 122]). However, Guen fails to teach that a pressure transmission part is broken when pressure in the case is at or higher than certain pressure. Koutari teaches that a pressure transmission part is broken when pressure in the case is at or higher than certain pressure ([0036], thin wall portion 12). Guen and Koutari are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because both relate to pressure-actuated components in batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Guen to incorporate the teachings of Koutari to include a burstable portion of the pressure transmission part, such that it breaks when the internal pressure exceeds a set value and releases gas through the housing. Such a modification would have been a predictable and routine adaptations to ensure controlled pressure relief.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, neither Guen or Kruppe, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a housing having a second body connected to a first body and inclined with respect to the first body. While Guen discloses a cap plate and Kruppe teaches an indicator with a housing that may be coupled to a cap, neither reference discloses or suggests an inclined housing configuration as claimed. Accordingly, this limitation appears to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, neither Guen nor Kruppe, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a configuration in which components are connected by a guide surface including a curved surface, and wherein the pop-up indicator includes a bendable material. The prior art fails to disclose or suggest this specific structural relationship and material characteristic. Furthermore, claim 13 depends from claim 12 and includes all of its allowable limitations, and therefore also appears to be allowable for at least this additional reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776