DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 17 say “a boss […] encloses a first region, and the first region communicates with the pressure relief hole, and together with the pressure relief hole constitute an accommodation space.” The subject is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the subject includes all of a boss, a first region, and a pressure relief hole, or just a first region and a pressure relief hole, or just a boss and a pressure relief hole. The phrase further lacks subject-verb agreement, since “together with the pressure relief hole” is syntactically parenthetical, with an ambiguous subject: is the subject the boss, the first region, or both? The limitation has been interpreted broadly to require a boss that defines an accommodation space in which is disposed the heat-resistant sheet, and the pressure relief hole. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claims 1 and 17.
In addition, the “an accommodation space” and the “a first region” are indefinite in relation to the “a pressure relief hole.” What is the first region a region of? an empty space? what differentiates it from the pressure relief hole? how does an ill-defined region of an empty space delimit “an accommodation space”? The claim has been interpreted broadly as some space within the peripheral borders of an embossed area of a cover plate having a through hole.
In claims 1 and 17, “heat-resistant” is a relative term of degree, that does not get defined until claim 16. It is indefinite, because it is unclear what the metes and bounds are: does it include polymers like PET which resist melting up to a predetermined temperature? or does it only include ceramics, glasses, and minerals, like mica? The claim has been interpreted in light of claim 16.
Claims 10-14 are indefinite because it is unclear how the “accommodation space” in claim 1, apparently defined by “a first region”, presumably of the cover plate, is delimited by, or defined in relation to, the claimed “explosion-proof sheet,” “position-limiting portion,” and “protection film.” The metes and bounds of the “accommodation space” are ambiguous, because some embodiments apparently have the heat-resistant sheet connected to the explosion-proof sheet, not set out on a lip next to a boss. Compare instant Fig. 9 to instant Fig. 7, in which the heat-resistant sheet is positioned on a lip extending away from the inner wall of the embossed portion. The claims have been interpreted broadly in line with the instant Figs.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what “a ventilating portion” means. Does it require through holes? Does it require only a capacity to vent, such as being broken or opened in response to high internal pressure? The claims have been interpreted broadly as requiring “capable of venting.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2023/0256687 to He et al.) in view of Liu (CN 115036643 to Liu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, He teaches:
a cover assembly on which a pressure relief hole 31 is disposed (¶ 0049)
a boss, which is disposed on a top surface of the cover body and surrounds an outer periphery of the pressure relief hole, wherein the boss encloses a first region which communicates with the pressure relief hole and forms an accommodation space 311 in which a sheet 33 is disposed to cover the pressure relief hole (¶ 0074, Fig. 13)
PNG
media_image1.png
341
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He does not explicitly teach:
that the sheet 33 is a heat-resistant sheet
formed of ceramic, glass, or mica (claim 16)
Liu, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a pressure relief hole on a cover, teaches an embossed hole on a cover plate including a protective sheet 252 covering the hole, the protective sheet formed from, e.g., ceramic or mica (Figs. 16-17, p. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
444
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use a mica or ceramic protective sheet for the sheet 33 in He, with the motivation to enhance fire resistance as suggested by Liu.
Regarding Claim 2, He teaches:
the sheet 33 disposed in the first region (Fig. 13, ¶ 0074)
Regarding Claim 3, He teaches:
wherein a bottom edge of an inner side wall of the boss is flush with a top edge of an inner side wall of the pressure relief hole (Fig. 13)
Regarding Claim 4, He teaches:
wherein the boss is spaced apart from an edge of the pressure relief hole and the heat-resistant sheet is fixed to a part of the cover body surrounded by the boss, i.e. the first region (Fig. 13)
Regarding Claim 5, He teaches:
wherein a distance between the edge of the pressure relief hole is on the order of mm, as evidenced by the use of a substantially similar battery cell and cover (Figs.)
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, He does not explicitly teach:
wherein the boss has an inner side wall surrounding the outer periphery of the pressure relief hole, and the heat-resistant sheet is spaced apart from the inner side wall of the boss
wherein the sheet is fixed to the first region in the accommodation space 311 (Fig. 13, ¶ 0074)
He teaches a shelf on which the sheet is spaced. It would have been obvious to provide some tolerance space between the sheet and the edge of the boss in order to avoid curling up at the edges and get a good seal. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been obvious to fix the sheet to the inner wall, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in order to provide a good seal over the hole. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, He teaches:
a sheet stretching over the pressure relief hole, and therefore at least partly located in a definable pressure relief hole (Fig. 13)
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, He does not explicitly teach:
a protection film disposed above the heat-resistant sheet covering the embossed region, the protection film fixed to the top surface of the boss
Liu, however, teaches two protection sheets 26 and 252, with the topmost sheet fixed to the top of the hole, wherein the sheets are heat-resistant within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a two-layered protection structure at the top of the embossed structure in He, with the motivation to ensure a vent with heat resistance that is also protected from environmental contaminants, like water and dust, and to protect the vent structures from shock. It would have been obvious to provide either one, or both, of such structures as heat-resistant polymers, ceramics, or the like, with the motivation to improve safety under high temperature conditions while providing sufficient protection from shocks and contaminants. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 15, He teaches:
wherein the film vents within the meaning of the claim (see, e.g., ¶ 0074, etc.)
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, He teaches:
a battery comprising a cover assembly on which a pressure relief hole 31 is disposed (abstract, ¶ 0049)
a boss, which is disposed on a top surface of the cover body and surrounds an outer periphery of the pressure relief hole, wherein the boss encloses a first region which communicates with the pressure relief hole and forms an accommodation space 311 in which a sheet 33 is disposed to cover the pressure relief hole (¶ 0074, Fig. 13)
a battery cell disposed in a housing closed by the cover assembly (Figs.)
He does not explicitly teach:
that the sheet 33 is a heat-resistant sheet
formed of ceramic, glass, or mica (claim 16)
Liu, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a pressure relief hole on a cover, teaches an embossed hole on a cover plate including a protective sheet 252 covering the hole, the protective sheet formed from, e.g., ceramic or mica (Figs. 16-17, p. 11). It would have been obvious to use a mica or ceramic protective sheet for the sheet 33 in He, with the motivation to enhance fire resistance as suggested by Liu.
Claims 8 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2023/0256687 to He et al.) in view of Liu (CN 115036643 to Liu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation), in further view of Huang (EP 3772120 to Huang et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, He does not teach:
a position-limiting portion extending toward the first region, with less area than the pressure relief hole, the heat-resistant sheet located below the position-limiting portion
Huang, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a pressure relief valve, teaches providing a fixing piece of less area that the hole, that holds a heat-resistant sheet 12 in place, and limits its position, the heat-resistant plate being held within a groove of the fixing piece 13 and therefore below it (Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image4.png
332
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to hold the heat-resistant sheet of He in such a fixing piece with the motivation to fix it in the shelf of the embossed portion, resulting in a heat-resistant sheet below the position-limiting fixing piece, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights