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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on June 2, 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The prior art rejections of record set forth in the previous Office Action, stand in light of the amendment.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 11, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim terminology such as a “lower surface” and “upper end” in claim 1; “upper surface” and “lower surface” in claim 4, etc. are interpreted in light of the specification which states at paragraph [0032]:
“Spatially relative terms, such as “beneath,” “below,” “lower,” “above,” “upper,” and the like, may be used herein for ease of description to describe one element or feature's relationship to another element(s) or feature(s) as illustrated in the figures. It will be understood that the spatially relative terms are intended to encompass different orientations of the device in use or operation in addition to the orientation depicted in the figures. For example, if the device in the figures is turned over, elements described as “below” or “beneath” other elements or features would then be oriented “above” or "over" the other elements or features. Thus, the term “below” may encompass both an orientation of above and below. The device may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations), and the spatially relative descriptors used herein should be interpreted accordingly.”
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, 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0271344) in view of Naing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,853,912) and Mitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0182159).
As to claim 1, discloses Choi a cylindrical secondary battery comprising:
an electrode assembly 10 comprising a first electrode plate, a separator, and a second electrode plate;
a case 20 accommodating the electrode assembly and electrically connected to the second electrode plate;
a terminal 50 passing through a lower surface 20a of the case and electrically connected to the first electrode plate; and
a cap plate 30 sealing an upper end portion of the case (see Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and having a vent 31, the vent being a thinner portion of the cap plate than other regions thereof (see Fig. 23).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Choi teaches of the battery further comprising a first current collector plate 40 having a circular plate shape corresponding to a lower surface of the electrode assembly 10 and contacting and electrically connected to the first electrode plate exposed at region 11 of the electrode assembly (Fig. 7);
PNG
media_image4.png
448
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
a second current collector plate 70 having a circular plate shape corresponding to an upper surface of the electrode assembly 10 and contacting and electrically connected to the second electrode plate exposed at region 12 of the electrode assembly (Fig. 23).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, the cap plate 30 is a circular metal plate (para. [0225]) having a central region over the second current collector plate 70 and an edge region 73a coupled to the case 20 and protruding upwardly (outwardly relative to the interior cell) above the central region thereof and wherein the vent 30 is in the central region (Fig. 23 above).
As to claim 6, a beading part 21 recessed into the case 20 below the cap plate and a crimping part 22 formed by the upper end portion of the case 20 being bent inwardly to fix the edge region of the cap plate (Fig. 23 above).
As to claim 9, a first gasket G2 between the terminal 50 and the case 20 (Fig. 7 above); and a second gasket G1 between the cap plate 30 and the case 20 (Fig. 23 above), wherein the cap plate is electrically insulated from the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (Fig. 23).
As to claims 1, 7-8 and 11, Choi does not teach of the vent having a central notch having a ring shape and being at a central portion of the cap plate; and an inner peripheral notch having a line shape extending from the central notch toward an edge of the cap plate (claim 1); where the thicknesses of the central notch first thickness is less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch (claim 1); of the inner peripheral notch comprising two to twelve inner peripheral notches spaced apart at equal intervals around the central notch (claim 7), the notches symmetrical with each other in a plan view with respect to the central notch (claim 8); a width of an upper surface of the central notch and width of the upper surface of the inner peripheral notch is greater than a width of a lower surface thereof (claim 11).
As noted above, Choi teaches of the same general cylindrical secondary battery wherein the battery includes a first terminal provided through the housing, the second terminal is the housing and the cap includes a vent assembly and the cap is electrically isolated from both the first and second electrodes, thus the cap is not a terminal.
Choi further recognized the inclusion of a vent 31, the vent having a smaller thickness than the rest of the cap and is more structurally vulnerable than the thicker portions of the cap 30 such that the venting portion can rupture when internal pressure of the housing 20 rises over a certain level due to a malfunction of the cylindrical battery (para. [0227]). The venting portion 31 may be formed by notching on one or two surfaces of the cap 30. By example, the venting portion 31 is a ring shape (Fig. 24) but the vent can have any other shapes which provide sufficient functionality of the vent in response to abnormal pressure increases within the housing of the battery.
To that extent, it would be of routine skill in the art for one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate other conventional vent plate designs in the art with a reasonable expectation that the change in shape of the vent structure from a ring structure in Choi to any number of other vent structures would have provided for a vent plate having good safety features in response to pressure build-up in the battery.
Naing, is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to designs and structures for cylindrical secondary batteries including venting features therein. Naing teaches of cylindrical secondary batteries wherein the vent plate can have an array of suitable designs including a vent design having a central notch 37 and a set of 4 symmetrical inner peripheral notches 70” having a line shape extending from the central notch 374 toward the edge of the plate (Fig. 11; claim 1). Further, this embodiment teaches that the inner peripheral notch can be 4 notches (claim 7) which are symmetrical to each other (claim 8). The width of the upper surface of the notches in both Choi and Naing are greater at the upper surface of the plate where the notches reside compared to the bottom of the notches in the plate (Fig. 23 of Choi and Figs. 12 and 12a below in Naing, Claim 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
292
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Naing recognized that a vent plate design as shown above provided a pattern which can rupture in response to an abnormal increase in pressure within the battery housing. It would be predictable that the modification of the vent structure of Choi with that of Naing, another art-recognized vent shape, would have functioned in a sufficient manner as discussed above, thereby maintaining and/or improving safety of the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vent design of the cap plate of Choi with other vent plate designs such as a vent having a central ring shaped notch and an inner peripheral portion notch having a line shape extending from the central notch as taught by Naing since it would have provided an alternative vent shape having sufficient design to respond to an abnormal increase in pressure within the battery housing and maintained or improved safety of the battery.
As to the thickness of the notches where the thicknesses of the central notch first thickness is less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch.
Notching the can or cap to locally reduce wall thickness to provide venting has long since been known in the art (Niang, for example) to provide a vent feature that opens in a designed manner when abnormal pressure occurs in a sealed battery. Making one region thinner relative to another would have predictably provided a design whereby the thinner region would preferably rupture first The central notch 37 and line shape peripheral notches 70” have the same thickness (Fig. 12a).
Niang itself appears to recognize in Fig.10 that a notch feature can have varied thicknesses where it would be understood that the thinner profile 42’’ of the overall notch design would be first to rupture in response to pressure.
Mitani is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to designs and structures for cylindrical secondary batteries including venting features therein. Mitani recognized that the inner annular region 8a can have thickness less than the adjacent inner peripheral notches 8b to effectively provide for a design where regions 8a would rupture first (see Figs. 3a-3c).
PNG
media_image6.png
277
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
395
337
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been of routine skill in the art to optimize the relative thicknesses of the notches as needed to achieve good vent response and sufficient safety of the battery vent mechanism. Providing the central notch to have a smaller thickness would have been of routine skill in the art to provide a design for sufficient vent response to abnormal pressure in the battery cell whereby first venting is first performed by the thinner region. Changing thicknesses of different parts of a vent design would have provided for directed venting. For example, a thinner central profile thickness would have predictably permitted the thinner notch to rupture first in response to pressure build up and regulated safety response of the vent design of the battery sufficiently (Mitani Fig. 3c for example).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality between the thicknesses being the same (original claim 2 and design as taught by Niang) and the thickness of the notches where the thicknesses of the central notch first thickness is less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch (taught by Niang and Mitani). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the central notch first thickness to be less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch of Modified Choi as taught by Niang and Mitani since it would have provided a design having desired venting along the central ring notch for directed venting in response to abnormal pressure rise in the battery. In addition, it would have been of routine skill in the art to vary depth profiles of venting notch structures to desired thicknesses to direct venting of the battery cell along preferred pathways through the vent structure as needed. Lastly, there is no evidence of significant criticality between the thicknesses being the same or where one is different from the other and either of theses designs would have been readily within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art as suitable alternative thickness profiles for effective venting of battery cells upon abnormal pressure and provide for sufficient safety designs for venting accordingly.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0271344) in view of Naing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,853,912) and Mitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0182159) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0136388) .
Modified Choi does not appear to disclose the specific dimensions of the depths of the notches in a range from 0.1mm to 0.35mm (claim 3).
Selecting the depth of the notches to a preferred range would have been of routine optimization to provide for a vent structure having a desired threshold for internal pressure within the battery cell. If the notches are too deep the vent may rupture prematurely. If the notches are too shallow, the vent may not rupture in response to abnormal pressure elevation within the battery cell, thus reducing the safety effect required by the vent assembly.
Mitani, directed to the same field of endeavor, to venting of secondary batteries using notched shaped vent structures, disclosed that sufficient notch depths were known to be 0.1 mm to 0.35mm (Table 1). Kim, also directed to the same field of endeavor, to venting of secondary batteries using notched shaped vent structures, disclosed that sufficient notch depths were known to be about 0.1mm to 0.2mm (para. [0081]). In each instance of Mitani and Kim, coupled with the understanding of routine optimization of vent notch depths for sufficient function of the vent structure, the range of 0.1mm to 0.35mm would have been well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art for sufficient venting and safety of the vent.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the depth of the vent notches of modified Choi to be in a range from 0.1 mm to 0.35 mm as taught by Mitani and/or Kim since the depth selection would have effectively provided a vent design having good safety and response to abnormal pressure in the battery cell. In addition, it has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0271344) in view of Naing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,853,912) and Mitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0182159) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0310906).
Modified Choi does not teach of the center notch having an inner diameter from 2mm to 9mm (claim 10).
Safety vents having both ring shaped notches coupled with linear extending notches have long since been known in the art. Kim, drawn to the same field of endeavor to cylindrical battery vent designs, teaches that a vent design having ring shaped notches and line shaped notches can be coupled together as a vent design for responding to abnormal pressure generating in a battery. Kim teaches that the grooves can be provide at ranges of 1-4mm and 5-8mm (para. [0011]) to provide for sufficient placement of ring shaped vent features which are design to vent in response to abnormal pressure in the battery cell.
Providing the ring notch of Choi in view of Naing to have a diameter of 2mm to 9mm would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as a vent ring of sufficient diameter to provide for sufficient vent response to abnormal pressure generating in a battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the ring notch of modified Choi to have a diameter in the range of 2mm to 9mm as taught by Kim since it would have provided a ring of sufficient diameter to provide for sufficient vent response to abnormal pressure generating in a battery. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0271344) in view of Naing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,853,912) and Mitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0182159) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Chun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0043367) or Fuhr et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0077062).
Modified Choi does not teach that the central and inner peripheral notch are formed by performing forging twice or three times to have a two-stage or three-stage stepped portion shape.
Chun, directed to the same field of endeavor, to venting of secondary batteries using notched shaped vent structures, further recognized that multi-stepped notches can be employed as a sufficient vent structure (Figs. 3 and 4). In addition, providing a multi-stage punch process to the vent was shown to extend the life of the punch (para. [0100]) while not adversely impacting the vent function.
PNG
media_image8.png
364
224
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
242
280
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Furh, directed to the same field of endeavor, to venting of secondary batteries using notched shaped vent structures, also teaches that a vent for an electrochemical cell can have a simple v-shaped design (Fig. 21C) or other two and three stepped designs (Figs. 21D, 21E, 21F). Thus teaching that any of these structures can provide for a vent design sufficient to respond to abnormal pressure build up in the battery cell.
PNG
media_image10.png
413
417
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Applying the stepped vent designs of Chun or Furh to a vent structure provided within a cylindrical battery cell would have predictably and expectedly functioned in sufficient manner to effectively vent the battery cell in response to abnormal pressure build up in the battery cell.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth profile of the notches of modified Choi to have a multi-staged shape as taught by Chun or Fuhr since it would have provided a vent design having sufficient venting capability in response to abnormal pressure within the battery cell. The design would have also expectedly extended the lifespan of the punch without compromising the vent function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Choi in view of Niang does not teach or suggest the thickness of the notches where the thicknesses of the central notch first thickness is less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch.
Applicant further alleges that Fig. 4a represents the thickness difference. The actual teaching of Fig. 4a shows that Ta and Tb in Fig. 4a are the same.
PNG
media_image11.png
602
769
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The specification teaches in paras. [0061]-[0062]:
[0061] In some embodiments, the central notch 165a and the inner peripheral notch 165b may have the same depth from the upper surface of the cap plate 160, and the central notch 165a and the inner peripheral notch 165b may have the same thickness (i.e., Ta=Tb). The first thickness Ta may be a thickness from the lowest point of the central notch 165a to the lower surface of the cap plate 160, and the second thickness Tb may be a thickness from the lowest point of the inner peripheral notch 165b to the lower surface of the cap plate 160. When internal pressure of the case 110 increases, pressure applied to the central notch 165a positioned at a central portion of the cap plate 160 may be greater than pressure applied to the inner peripheral notch 165b adjacent to the edge region 162, and thus, after the central notch 165a is fractured, the inner peripheral notch 165b may be fractured (e.g., the central notch 165a may fracture or burst before the inner peripheral notches 165b fracture or burst).
[0062] As another example, the first thickness Ta of the central notch 165a may be less than the second thickness Tb of the inner peripheral notch 165b. However, when the first thickness Ta is equal to the second thickness Tb, the same forging process may be used to form both the central notch 165a and the inner peripheral notch 165b together, thereby reducing manufacturing costs and complexity.
So it appears that the disclosure teaches that the thicknesses can be the same or different but fails to show any critical difference between the two embodiments.
Notching the vent plate or foil to locally reduce wall thickness to provide venting has long since been known in the art (Niang and Mitani, as discussed above, for example). Such a structural feature provided a vent that opens in a suitable manner when abnormal pressure occurs in a sealed battery. Making one region thinner relative to another would have predictably provided a design whereby the thinner region would preferably rupture first. Additionally, there is nothing unexpected or critical to varying one thickness relative to the other, as such differences would have been readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply affect how the vent structure yields and ruptures under pressure. Varying groove/notch depths is meant to simply and obviously tune vent behavior absent a showing of unexpected results to the particular vent of base claim 1.
As further discussed above each of Niang and Mitani recognized that portions of a comprehensive vent structure can have varied thickness profiles to effectively provide for a design where vent rupturing can be directed or tuned.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been of routine skill in the art to optimize the relative thicknesses of the notches as needed to achieve good vent response and sufficient safety of the battery vent mechanism. Providing the central notch to have a smaller thickness would have been of routine skill in the art to provide a design for sufficient vent response to abnormal pressure in the battery cell whereby venting is directed or tuned as desired. Changing thicknesses of different parts of a vent design would have provided for directed venting.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality between the thicknesses being the same (original claim 2 and design as taught by Niang) and the thickness of the notches where the thicknesses of the central notch first thickness is less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the central notch first thickness to be less than the second thickness of the inner peripheral notch of Modified Choi as taught by Niang and Mitani since it would have provided a design having desired venting along the central ring notch for directed venting in response to abnormal pressure rise in the battery. In addition, it would have been of routine skill in the art to vary depth profiles of venting notch structures to desired thicknesses to direct venting of the battery cell along preferred pathways through the vent structure as needed. Lastly, there is no evidence of significant criticality between the thicknesses being the same or where one is different from the other and either of these designs would have been readily within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art as suitable thickness profiles for effective venting of battery cells upon abnormal pressure and provide for sufficient safety designs for venting accordingly.
For at least these reasons, the prior art rejections of record stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0040213 discloses a battery vent wherein a central portion of the vent has a smaller thickness relative to the peripheral portions of the vent (Fig. 4). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0027807 discloses a battery vent wherein a central portion of the vent has a smaller thickness relative to the peripheral portions of the vent (Figs 14-15). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416338 discloses of a vent structure wherein the interior vent region is thinner relative to a periphery to direct venting as need through the plate 11.
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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights