DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2 . Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged . Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 3 . Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted September 5, 2023, December 26, 2024, March 24, 2025, June 18, 2025, and November 24, 2025 , have been received and considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation 4 . All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language. Claim Objections 5. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “according to any one of claims claim 1” which contains a typographical error. The limitation should be corrected as: “ according to any one of claims claim 1 ” . 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. 6 . Claims 2-5 and 13-15 are 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. 7. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and recites “the middle of the weak portion” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because Claim 1 does not recite a middle of the weak portion and so it is unclear what is meant by “the middle of the weak portion”. Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim. 8. Claim 13 recites “electrode terminals, the electrode terminal comprises…” but “the electrode terminal” lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear which electrode terminal is being further limited. Claim 15 also further limits “the electrode terminal” but again, it is unclear which electrode terminal is further limited. Claim 14 is rejected based on its dependence on a rejected base claim. 9. Claim 14 , which depends on Claim 13, recites “the middle part to the two ends of the arc wall” but this limitations lacks antecedent basis because Claim 13 does not recite a middle part of the arc wall, and so it is unclear what part is defined by this limitation. 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application , as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10 . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsudo US PG Publication 2016/0293917 . Regarding Claim 11 , Matsudo discloses an end cover assembly comprising an end cover 11 , a depression (pressure release valve) 132 wherein the depression is formed by a surface of the end cover recessing in a thickness direction (Fig. 1, shown as 20 ) , a bottom wall of the depression forms a pressure relief mechanism, and the depression comprises an arc wall (see annotated Fig. 13) extending along a circumferential direction of the end cover (the circumferential direction of the end cover is simply around the circumference, regardless of the cover’s shape and the orientation of the depression relative to the end cover ) and a weak portion (arcuate grooves) 139/140 , configured to crack (rupture) when the pressure relief mechanism is actuated ( paras 0160-0167 , wherein the weak portion corresponds to the arc wall in shape since the weak portion 139/140 mimics the shape of the arc walls (see entire disclosure and especially Fig s . 1, 13, 18, paras paras 0160-0167 , 0214-0239). 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . 11 . Claim s 1-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Matsudo US PG Publication 2016/0293917 . Regarding Claim s 1 , 15, and 16 , Matsudo discloses a battery 10 (meeting Claim 16 ) comprising an end cover (lid) 14 comprising two end holes running through the end cover 11 for mounting electrode terminals (positive and negative terminals 15/16 extend from inside case 11 to outside, para 0058 , which necessarily occurs via holes), a depression (pressure release valve) 20, wherein the depression 20 is formed by a surface of the end cover recessing in a thickness direction, and a bottom wall of the depression forms a pressure relief mechanism (valve member) 21 , and a weak portion ( arcuate groove ) 139/140 , disposed on the pressure relief mechanism, wherein the pressure relief mechanism is configured for relieving internal pressure of the battery cel l ( rupture grooves rupture at high pressure , para s 0160-0167 ) , wherein depth of the weak portion 139/140 gradually decreases on one or two sides of the grooves, on all sides of a perpendicular bisector of a connecting line of the two through holes in a direction leaving the perpendicular bisector since e.g. each linear groove extending outward from a center point of the end cover 11 (exemplified in all Figs ; see especially Figs 13-14C ) gradually decrease in depth moving away from a center of the grooves, and although Matsudo does not specifically show how the depression 20 is oriented on an end cover 11 relative to the holes, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to orient the depression such that it fits best on the end cover and this would orient the linear grooves/weak point 139/140 in such a way that depth of the weak portion 139/140 gradually decreases on one or two sides of a perpendicular bisector of a connecting line of the two through holes in a direction leaving the perpendicular bisecto r (meeting Claim 15 ) (see entire disclosure and especially all figs and paras 0159-0174) . T he mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Regarding Claim s 2-4 , the skilled artisan would be capable of drawing a perpendicular bisector of a connecting line of the two holes passing through the middle of the weak portion of Matsudo (modified as above to have an arrangement on the end cover such that the weak portion and depression (which have coinciding arc shapes) are symmetrical about the perpendicular bisector . T he mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Regarding Claim 5, Matsudo discloses in para 0183 that the battery can be circular (cylindrical) and therefore, the skilled artisan would expect the end cover to be circular , and since Matsudo teaches wherein the perpendicular bisector can pass through the center of the rectangular end cover as shown above, and the weak portion extends along a direction of the end cover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the cylindrical battery having a circular end cover of Matsudo such that the weak portion extends along a circumferential direction of the end cover of Matsudo since Regarding Claim s 6 -7 , the embodiment of Fig . 13 , for example, shows wherein t he d epression comprises an arc wall necessarily having an arc angle of less than 180° (meeting Claim 7 ) and a straight wall which form an enclosure (lacking any specific definition of what an enclosure entails) since they enclose or surround an area inside of these features. Since Fig. 1 shows that the pressure release valve 20 is depressed into the end cover 11 , the skilled artisan would understand Regarding Claim s 8 -9 , Matsudo discloses a first spacing is present between the weak portion 139/140 and the arc wall, a second spacing is present between the straight wall and two ends of the weak portion, and a third spacing is present between the arc wall and an edge of the end cover (the third spacing total ly surrounds the depression 20 and so is between the arc portion and all e dges of the end cover 11 and wherein the arc wall and straight wall have an arc transition (see annotated Fig 13). Regarding Claim 10 , Matsudo discloses wherein a stepped surface is formed on a side wall of the depression wherein the stepped surface extends along a circumferential direction of the depression because Matsudo teaches th at the arcuate grooves 139/140 along a circumferential direction of the depression (para 0117) and teaches that grooves can be stepped in depth (para 0100) and while the stepped-depth teaching may not be specifically disclose with reference to the arcuate grooves 139/140 , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the end cover of Matsudo such that the stepped surface extends along a circumferential direction of the depression because this allows for flexible design and t he combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. _ _,_ _, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Regarding Claim 13 , Matsudo further discloses wherein the end cover assembly further comprises electrode terminals 15/16 , the electrode t ermina l comprises a first wall ( 17a ) the depression further comprises a straight first wall (e.g. 241/242 ) connecting two ends of the arc wall (see Fig. 18) but does not specifically disclose that the first wall is straight or that the first wall is substantially parallel to the straight wall. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the insulation ring 17a in any shape that would be suit the design of the end cover and e.g. save space or ease construction, such as square or rectangular (such that it would have a straight wall) because t he change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey , 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the end cover of Matsudo such that the straight wall of modified Matsudo is substantially parallel to the first wall of Matsudo in order to make the best use of space since the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). 12 . Claim s 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudo US PG Publication 2016/0293917 , as applied to Claims 11 and 13, and further in view of Marchak US Patent 4,722,874 . Regarding Claim s 12 and 14 , Matsudo discloses the claimed end cover assembly as described in the rejections of Claims 1 and 13, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Matsudo discloses wherein the weak portion is an arc but fails to specifically disclose wherein depth of the weak portion varies in an extension direction of the circumference of the arc or wherein in directions extending f rom the middle part to the two ends of the arc call, depth of the weak portion gradually decreases. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery venting system design, Marchak teaches an arc shaped weak portion 38 having gradually decreasing depth in a direction along the circumference of the arc shape with the benefit that this helps displace frangible material inwardly by ramping the surface (see entire disclosure and especially Col 5, lines 48-65). Therefore , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the weak portion of Matsudo such that depth of the weak portion varies in an extension direction of the circumference of the arc or wherein in directions extending f rom the middle part to the two ends of the arc call, depth of the weak portion gradually decreases because Marchak teaches that this helps displace frangible material inwardly by ramping the surface . Conclusion 13 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Danno JP2010-40328 teaches a battery end cover having a venting mechanism with varying depth of the weak/frangible portion (see all figs and associated text) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LISA S PARK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3597 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time. 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721481 . 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. /LISA S PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729