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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, and 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, line 3, “a vent center portion formed at a center and of the safety vent spaced apart from the cap up” should read , “a vent center portion formed at a center of the safety vent spaced apart from the cap up”
In Claim 8, lines 1-2, "the straight passages” should read “the plurality of straight passages” for consistency with claim 6.
In Claim 9, lines 1-2, "the annular passages" should read, “the plurality of annular passages” for consistency with claim 6.
In Claim 10, line 1, "the partition walls" should read, “the plurality of partition walls” for consistency with claim 6.
In Claim 10, line 7, "the straight passages" should read, “the plurality of straight passages” for consistency with claim 6.
In Claim 11, lines 1-2, "the annular passages" should read, “the plurality of annular passages” for consistency with claim 6 and 9.
In Claim 12, lines 1-2, "the partition walls” should read, “the plurality of partition walls” for consistency with claim 6 and 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the cap up includes: a terminal portion convexly formed upward in the center of thereof” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether “thereof” is referring to the cap up or the terminal portion. For the purposes of this office action, the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “wherein the cap up includes: a terminal portion convexly formed upward in the center of the cap up” as is reasonable in light of the Fig. 2 and 3 (terminal portion 141) of the instant specification.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20100136388 A1), hereinafter Kim ‘388.
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘388 discloses a secondary battery ([0030], Fig. 1, 1) comprising:
an electrode assembly ([0030], Fig. 1, 10);
a case (i.e. can, [0030]) comprising the electrode assembly ([0030], Fig. 1, 20); and
a cap assembly ([0030], Fig. 1, 70) coupled to an upper portion of case, including a cap up ([0062], Fig. 1, 71), a safety vent ([0064], Fig. 1, 73) installed below the cap up, and a cap down ([0064], Fig. 1, 74 ) installed below the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (i.e. first electrode tab 17 connected to bottom surface of cap-down 74, [0067], Fig. 1), as shown in annotated Kim ‘388 figure 1B below.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 1B
Regarding claim 13, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kim ‘388 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Kim ‘388 further discloses wherein the cap up includes: a terminal portion convexly formed upward in the center of the cap up; and a coupling portion positioned on an outer periphery of the terminal portion and to which the safety vent is coupled, wherein the discharge passages faces a lower surface of the coupling portion, as shown in annotated Kim ‘388 figure 1B below.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 1B
Claims 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (KR20180080847A, see Examiner provided English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses a secondary battery ([0006]) comprising:
an electrode assembly ([0006]);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly ([0024]); and
a cap assembly ([0034], Fig. 1, 130) coupled to an upper portion of the case (Fig. 1, 120) including a cap up ([0034], Fig. 1, 140), a safety vent ([0034], Fig. 1, 150) installed below the cap up, and a cap down (Fig. 1, 170) installed below the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly, as shown below in annotated Ko figure 4a.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 4a
Ko further discloses wherein the safety vent includes a discharge passage, (i.e. notch, [0039], Fig. 4a, 152) formed on a surface in contact with the cap up, as shown below in Ko figure 4a.
PNG
media_image4.png
331
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 4a
Regarding claim 2, Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Ko further discloses wherein the safety vent includes a vent center portion formed at a center of the safety vent spaced apart from the cap up, a vent contact portion extending outward from the center of the safety vent and contacting a lower surface of the cap up; and a vent extension portion bent from the vent contact portion and extending to an upper portion of the cap up, as shown in annotated Ko figure 4a below.
PNG
media_image5.png
460
707
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 4a
Regarding claims 3-4, Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Ko further discloses wherein the discharge passage (i.e. notch, [0039], Fig. 4a, 152) is formed on an upper surface of the vent contact portion, as claimed in claim 3 and as shown in annotated Ko figure 4a below.
Ko further discloses wherein the discharge passage is formed in a portion adjacent to the vent center portion on the vent contact portion, as claimed in claim 4, and as shown in annotate Ko figure 4a below.
PNG
media_image6.png
290
707
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 4a
Regarding claim 13, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Ko discloses wherein the cap up includes: a terminal portion convexly formed upward in the center of the cap up; and a coupling portion positioned on an outer periphery of the terminal portion and to which the safety vent is coupled, wherein the discharge passages faces a lower surface of the coupling portion, as shown in annotated Ko figure 4a below.
PNG
media_image7.png
460
707
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ko Fig. 4a
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR20180080847A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kwon et al. (KR20060085445A).
Regarding claim 5, Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Ko discloses the discharge passage (i.e. notch) on the upper surface of the vent contact portion is for guiding the break of the safety vent ([0039]) but does not disclose the depth of the discharge passage.
Kwon teaches a similar battery secondary battery with a safety vent consisting of a vent groove (i.e. discharge passage) with a constant, predetermined depth (pg. 2, lines 46-47; pg. 3, lines 2-4). Kwon further teaches the vent groove depth (i.e. bottom surface of cap plate to vent groove thickness) to be 0.01 to 0.03 mm (pg. 2, line 50-53), which is wholly within the claimed range of 0.05 mm or less.
Kwon further teaches when the depth of the groove is less than 0.01 mm, there is risk the safety vent is easily damaged even by a weak external shock, while if the depth is more than 0.03 mm, a malfunction occurs as the safety vent does not break (pg. 3, lines 7-10, 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed range for the depth of the discharge passage in order to achieve a safety vent that is able to withstand weak external shocks while still bursting due to internal pressure build-up of the battery.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR20180080847A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20100136388 A1), hereinafter Kim '388.
Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Ko discloses the discharge passage (i.e. notch) on the upper surface of the vent contact portion is for guiding the break of the safety vent ([0039]) but does not disclose wherein the discharge passage includes a plurality of annular passages having concentric circles; a plurality of straight passages connected to the plurality of annular passages and radially formed and spaced apart from each other; and a plurality of partition walls interposed between the plurality of annular passages.
Kim ‘388 discloses a secondary battery with a similar safety vent ([0078]) wherein the body portion of the vent (Fig. 2A, 731) includes a notch portion ([0077]). Kim ‘388 further discloses a plurality of annular passages (Fig. 2A, 734, 735, [0073-0075]) having concentric circles; a plurality of straight passages connected to the plurality of annular passages and radially formed and spaced apart from each other (Fig. 2A, 736, [0073-0075]); and a plurality of partition walls interposed between the plurality of annular passages, as shown in annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A below.
PNG
media_image8.png
548
636
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A
Kim ‘388 further discloses the notch portion is formed to facilitate bending or bursting of a portion of the vent in order to prevent current flow when an internal pressure of the secondary battery increases ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the notch portion taught by Kim ‘388 including the plurality of annular and straight passages for the benefit of facilitating the bending or bursting of a portion of the vent in order to prevent current flow when an internal pressure of the secondary battery increases.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ko discloses wherein the plurality of straight passages open portions of an interface between the vent contact portion and the vent center portion, as shown in Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A below.
PNG
media_image9.png
548
638
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A
Thus, modified Ko satisfies claim 7.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR20180080847A) and Kim et al. (US 20100136388 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (KR101220485B1), hereinafter Kim '485.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ko discloses the plurality of straight passages (Fig. 2A, 736) but does not disclose the straight passages to be include so as to increase in depth from outside to the inside.
Kim ‘485 teaches a battery with an apparatus to protect from electrolyte leakage ([24]) which includes a lower cover and upper cover ([39]). Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover includes a communication hole (Fig. , 202) which establishes communication to the internal space of the cell ([42]).
Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover has an inclined surface (Fig. 3 , 213) towards the direction of the communication hole (i.e. increasing in depth further away from the communication hole, Fig. 3, 202) which allows the leakage of the battery to be blocked and flow back through the through holes and return to the inside of the case ([54-55]). The inclined surface increases leakage resistance which makes gas discharge more difficult ([54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the inclined surface as taught by Kim ‘485 such that modified Ko’s straight passages are formed to be inclined so as to increase in depth from inside to the outside, for the benefit of increasing leakage resistance thus preventing electrolyte leakage, and making gas discharge more difficult.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ko discloses wherein the plurality of annular passages include a first annular passage having a first diameter, and a second annular passage having second diameter greater than the first diameter, as shown in annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A below.
PNG
media_image10.png
548
636
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A
Modified Ko does not disclose wherein a depth of the first annular passage is greater than a depth of the second annular passage.
Kim ‘485 teaches a battery with an apparatus to protect from electrolyte leakage ([24]) which includes a lower cover and upper cover ([39]). Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover includes a communication hole (i.e. vent, Fig. , 202) which establishes communication to the internal space of the cell ([42]).
Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover has an inclined surface (Fig. 3 , 213) towards the direction of the vent (i.e. increasing in depth further away from the communication hole, Fig. 3, 202) which allows the leakage of the battery to be blocked and flow back through the through holes and return to the inside of the case ([54-55]). The inclined surface increases leakage resistance which makes gas discharge more difficult ([54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the inclined surface as taught by Kim ‘485 such that the depth of the first annular passage, closer to the vent, is greater than the depth of the second annular passage, further from the vent, for the benefit of increasing leakage resistance thus preventing electrolyte leakage, and making gas discharge more difficult.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ko further discloses wherein the plurality of partition walls include: a first partition wall located inside the first annular passage; and a second partition wall interposed between the first annular passage and second annular passage, wherein the first partition wall and the second partition wall are separated into a plurality of parts by the plurality of straight passages, as shown in annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A below.
PNG
media_image11.png
548
636
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘388 Fig. 2A
Thus, modified Ko satisfies claim 10.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR20180080847A), Kim et al. (US 20100136388 A1), hereinafter Kim '388, Kim et al. (KR101220485B1), hereinafter Kim '485, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kang (KR20170063128A) .
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Ko discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ko discloses first and second annular passages such that the depth of the first annular passage is greater than a depth of the second annular passage, as rendered obvious above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular passages further include a third annular passage having a third diameter greater than the second diameter.
Kim ‘388 further teaches changing from one to two annular passages (Example 1, Fig. 2A vs. Comparative Example 1, Fig. 3A) results in differences in operating pressure where an embodiment possessing two annular passages (Example 1) displayed an operating pressure that was lower than a conventional vent ([0115]) while the comparative example having one annular passage displayed an operating pressure about the same as that of a convention vent ([0141]).
This reasonably establishes that increasing the number of notches/annular passages and accompanying partition walls reduces the vent operating pressure to more effectively achieve Kim’s goal of improving safety by blocking current flow even at a low internal pressure ([0156]).
Therefore, while modified Ko may fail to disclose a third annual passage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a third annular passage having a third diameter greater than the second diameter, as claimed in claim 11, into modified Ko as a duplication of the annular passages to further reduce vent operating pressure and further improve safety, as suggested by Kim ‘388.
Furthermore, a skilled artisan would understand that in duplicated the annular passages, there is a need to duplicate the partition walls to separate the second annular passage from the third annular passage, just as the second partition walls separates the first and second annular passages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate a third partition wall interposed between the second and third annular passage, as claimed in claim 12, into modified Ko as a duplicate of the partition walls with the annular passages allows for the vent operating pressure to be reduced, further improving safety, as suggested by Kim ‘388.
It would have been further obvious to design the third annular passage’s diameter to be greater than the second diameter because a skilled artisan would recognize to arrange the third passage outward of the second passage from the radial center, as in converting from one to two passages in Kim ‘388 Figures 3A and 2A would necessitate a larger diameter given that each annular passage is concentric about the radial center.
Furthermore, Kang teaches a gasket ([0036]) including three gas discharge passages, ([0037], Fig. 2 and 6, 342a) and three partition walls (Fig. 2, 341) interposed between the gas discharge passages. Kang further teaches the gas discharge passages allow for heat and pressure from inside the can be discharged preventing the secondary battery from exploding and igniting, thereby enhancing the safety of the secondary cell, ([0032-0033];[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the annular passages/notches of modified Ko through the addition of a third passage, for the benefit of enhanced safety of the battery, as taught by Kang and desired by modified Ko.
Modified Ko further discloses a change in depth such that the first annular passage is of greater depth than the second annular passage, as rendered obvious above, but does not disclose wherein a depth of the second annular passage is greater than a depth of the third annular passage.
Kim ‘485 teaches a battery with an apparatus to protect from electrolyte leakage ([24]) which includes a lower cover and upper cover ([39]). Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover includes a communication hole (i.e. vent, Fig. , 202) which establishes communication to the internal space of the cell ([42]).
Kim ‘485 further teaches the lower cover has an inclined surface (Fig. 3 , 213) towards the direction of the vent (i.e. increasing in depth further away from the communication hole, Fig. 3, 202) which allows the leakage of the battery to be blocked and flow back through the through holes and return to the inside of the case ([54-55]). The inclined surface increases leakage resistance which makes gas discharge more difficult ([54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the inclined surface as taught by Kim ‘485 such that the depth of the second annular passage, closer to the vent, is greater than a depth of the third annular passage, further from the vent, for the benefit of for the benefit of increasing leakage resistance thus preventing electrolyte leakage, and making gas discharge more difficult.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights