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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on August 7, 2026 entered as per the RCE filed August 31, 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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “forming on outermost surface” at lines 8-9 which may be in better form as “forming an outermost surface”. Claims 3-12 are dependent upon claim 1 and objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and forming an outermost surface of the secondary battery (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 (Naing, 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).
Naing 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 Naing) 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 Naing 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 Naing 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 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 provided at ranges of 1-4mm and 5-8mm (para. [0011]) to provide for sufficient placement of ring shaped vent features which are designed 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 August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the vent plates and corresponding vent structures of Naing and Mitani are not cap plates (outer plate) but are elements internal to the battery itself.
This argument is not persuasive.
First, the teaching to the outer plate having a vent structure is taught by Choi itself. Notably, Choi teaches of the cap plate 30 sealing an upper end portion of the case and forming an outermost surface of the secondary battery (see Fig. 6 below). Choi is also drawn to the cap plate 30 having venting portions 31 formed in the cap plate to force gas generate inside the housing 20 out (para. [0227]). Thus Choi recognized the advantage of providing vent structures to the cap plate 30.
Therefore, the primary reference of Choi itself recognized the cap plate sealing an upper end portion of the case and forming an outermost surface of the secondary battery and further including a corresponding vent feature therein.
While Naing and Mitani are drawn to internal vent structures, this alone is not held to be a sufficient argument to overcome the addition of these references to the base in invention of Choi.
First, each of Choi, Naing and Mitani recognized that vent design structures to rupturable elements of a sealed battery were known in the art all for the same benefit of improved safety (venting gases out of the closed cell). Whether the vent is an internal plate vent or an external vent plate (i.e. at different locations) is not a sufficient argument particularly when all of the references recognized battery pressure relief structures which address the same problem of overpressure venting of a closed cell. Therefore, the teachings of Naing and Mitani can still be reasonably and predictably applied to the vent design of Choi for addressing this same problem without adversely affecting the design of Choi itself.
Choi provides a battery vent design for discharging gas from the cell and Naing and Mitani teach of alternative, known internal cell vent configurations directed to the same pressure-relief problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably motivated to adapt the vent configuration of Choi using the vent designs of Naing and Mitani with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success to address pressure release and venting of the cell during abnormal operation / internal gas build up. Also a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the modified structure of Choi to retain the known pressure relief function required by cap 30 of Choi when modified in light of the secondary teachings of Naing and Mitani.
The secondary references to Naing and Mitani are not being relied upon because their vents are in exactly the same physical location of Choi. Rather they are being used because they teach of known vent-shape solutions to the same battery overpressure / internal gas generation problem and adapting those vent structures to Choi would have been within ordinary, predictable battery-vent engineering. A difference in the physical location of the vent structures of Naing and Mitani does not sufficiently establish nonobviousness and does not overcome the rejection.
Therefore, for at least those reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the Office does not consider the different placement and function of the cap in Choi compared to the vent plates of Naing and Mitani. Further alleging that Choi teaches an additional function to also retain the electrode assembly within the battery that neither Naing nor Mitani teach or suggest.
This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
The Examiner has reviewed the teachings of Choi and fails to see where Choi teaches this necessary function, much less necessitate by the specific vent design of the cap plate 30. While Applicant has made this allegation, Applicant has not provided any direction as to where Choi teaches such.
According to Choi at paras. [0227]-[0230]:
“[0227] Referring to FIGS. 23 and 24, the cap 30 may further include a venting portion 31 to prevent the internal pressure from rising over a preset value due to a gas generated inside the housing 20. The preset internal pressure value may be about 15 kgf/cm.sup.2 to 35 kgf/cm.sup.2. The venting portion 31 corresponds to a region having a smaller thickness than the peripheral region of the cap 30. The venting portion 31 is more structurally vulnerable than the peripheral region. Accordingly, in case that the internal pressure of the housing 20 rises over a certain level due to a malfunction of the cylindrical battery 1, the venting portion 31 blows to force gas generated inside the housing 20 out. The venting portion 31 may be formed, for example, by notching on one or two surfaces of the cap 30 to partially reduce the thickness of the housing 20.
[228] The cylindrical battery 1 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may have a structure in which both the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal are provided at the upper part thereof as described below, and thus the upper structure is more complicated than the lower structure. Accordingly, the cap 30 that forms the lower surface of the cylindrical battery 1 may include the venting portion 31 to force gas generated inside the housing 20 out. As shown in FIG. 23, the lower end of the cap 30 is preferably disposed higher than the lower end of the housing 20. In this case, even in case that the lower end of the housing 20 contacts the ground or the bottom surface of the housing for constructing a module or pack, the cap 30 does not contact the ground or the bottom surface of the housing for constructing a module or pack. Accordingly, it is possible to prevent the pressure required for the blowing of the venting portion 31 from deviating from a design value due to the weight of the cylindrical battery 1, thereby allowing the venting portion 31 to blow smoothly.
[0229] Meanwhile, the venting portion 31 may extend continuously or discontinuously to surround the central region of the cap 30. In this case, a longer distance from the center of the cap 30 to the venting portion 31 causes the venting portion 31 to blow more easily when the internal pressure rises. This is because under the equal internal pressure applied, with the increasing distance from the center point of the cap 30 to the venting portion 31, a greater force acts on the venting portion 31, thereby allowing the venting portion 31 to blow more easily. In addition, with the increasing distance from the center point of the cap 30 to the venting portion 31, the open area by venting increases, thereby allowing the venting gas to smoothly exit. From this point of view, the venting portion 31 may be preferably formed along the edges of the central region having an approximately flat shape extending in a downward direction (in FIG. 23) among the entire region of the cap 30.
[0230] Although FIGS. 23 and 24 show that the venting portion 31 is continuously formed on the cap 30 in an approximately circular shape, the present disclosure is not limited thereto. The venting portion 31 may have an approximately elliptical shape or any other geometric shape including the center point of the cap 30 therein. In addition, the venting portion 31 may be formed discontinuously, rather than continuously.”
From this disclosure, it is clear, as would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the venting portion 31 is not limited to the designs therein and further that Choi itself never teaches that the design of vent 31 of the cap plate 30 must be such that it retains the internal cell components from exiting the battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to known prior vent designs as suitable alternative vent structures including the vent designs of Naing and Mitani and for the benefit of tuning venting of the closed cell and improved venting and safety of the battery design. Even though the vent structures of Naing and Mitani may be located internal of the cell, all of Choi, Naing and Mitani are related to the same concept of vent structures for cells and would have had the same mechanical design and response to abnormal pressure build up within the cell regardless of whether the vent is near a side of the cell (such as where the cap assembly of Naing and Mitani are) or part of an external plate itself such as in Choi. What is reasonable to expect is that modifying the cap plate of Choi with other vent designs including those such as Naing and Mitani would have predictably resulted in suitable alternative vent designs for good venting and safety protocols.
Therefore, for at least those reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
If the allegation regarding the additional need to retain the electrode assembly within the battery is a feature of the instant invention this argument is further not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing internal battery parts from discharging out of the vented cell) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While Applicant does mention this in the context of the instant invention, a review of the design of the battery such as in Fig. 2 is such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the beading part 113 of the design to be what effectively retains the internal cell components in the can. This type of retention is equally achieved by Choi which also shows a bead design in the same manner and that bead design would predictably and expectedly keep the internal cell parts from being discharged from the can.
In addition, even if it were claimed, the fact that other benefits may have been noted in the instant invention itself is not sufficient in overcome the combined teachings of Choi in view of Naing and Mitani.
In the case of the combination 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 Naing and Mitani 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 the combination has the same vent design, it would obviously provide the same electrode assembly retention. “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Although the secondary references do not expressly state that vents retain the internal cell components within the casing during venting, a person of ordinary skill in the art, implementing the known vent structure of Naing and Mitani in the cell of Choi for the benefits noted above would have recognized the ordinary safety and structural design objective of providing pressure relief without unnecessary discharging of the internal cell components from the can. In fact it is generally and widely recognized in the art that venting of a closed cell is directed to venting of only the internal gas build up and venting is not generally recognized to include nor desire the additional discharge of the internal battery parts of a cell.
Furthermore, this argument is not persuasive since it fails to provide clear and convincing evidence that the modification does not provide the same function. Rather, it would have been reasonably obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that vent designs such as Naing and Mitani, applied to Choi for at least those reasons discussed above, would have provided for a design that would have predictably prohibited the internal components from being discharged from the housing as a function of how the vent designs of Naing and Mitani are provided.
Again, Choi discloses the relevant battery and outer vent arrangement. Naing and Mitani teach of other known vent designs for the same benefit of effective response to abnormal internal gas pressure conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been sufficiently and reasonably motivated to adapt the vent configuration of Choi with those of Naing and Mitani as a routine and predictable vent design variation with the predictable and expected result of controlled pressure relief from the cell. Further, in modifying the vent structure of Choi with other conventional vent designs such as that of Naing and Mitani, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that another predictable benefit would have included retaining the internal components within the cell during pressure relief given the designs of Naing and Mitani. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found such a function to be unexpected at all given the predictable engineering designs further associated with a given vent structure. Rather, in implementing the designs of Naing and Mitani to Choi for the purposes of improved venting and battery cell safety, the additional function of preventing discharge of the internal cell components from the can would have been an obvious and predictable consequence of selecting the vent designs of Naing and Mitani. Nothing indicates that the modification to Choi in view of Naing and Mitani would render the device of Choi inoperable for its intended purpose nor show that such a structure would not provide additional function (disclosed or predictably present based on predictable engineering designs).
There is nothing unexpected for such designs and the Examiner does not find that the additional function of keeping the electrode assembly within the case is a critical and distinguishable feature over the combination which would, by design, expectedly provide the same function (explicit or not).
Therefore, for at least those reasons discussed above, the arguments above are not persuasive and the prior art rejections of record stand.
Conclusion
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