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
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites a specific combination of structural features not taught or suggested by Guo and Zhou, particularly: (1) the second concave portion formed on the side of the end cover facing away from the electrode assembly; (2) the second convex portion protruding from the surface of the body portion facing the electrode assembly; (3) the pressure relief through hole penetrating the second convex portion and body portion; (4) the projections of the second convex and second concave portions at least partially overlapping in the thickness direction; and (5) a transitional fillet at the connection between the second convex portion and body portion.
Applicant further argues that Zhou's Figure 3 does not show the claimed arrangement and that neither Guo nor Zhou recognizes Applicant's stated problem of compensating for the reduced local strength caused by the second concave portion.
The arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The rejection does not rely upon Guo or Zhou individually for every limitation of amended claim 1. Rather, Guo teaches the underlying battery end-cover pressure-relief assembly, including the pressure-relief opening, pressure-relief mechanism, and reinforcing portion positioned relative to the pressure-relief opening, while Zhou teaches the use of convex and concave contouring in a battery end-cover pressure-relief structure.
Applicant's argument that Zhou does not use the same terminology as the present application does not establish patentability. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the structural rigidity of Guo's pressure-relief region would have recognized Zhou's convex/concave contouring as a known means for modifying the geometry of the battery end-cover structure. Positioning the convex structure in the same local region as the recess, including at least partial overlap of their projections in the thickness direction, would have predictably reinforced the portion of the end cover affected by the recessed pressure-relief geometry.
Applicant argues that the claimed arrangement is not a mere design choice because the second concave portion promotes positioning and assembly but may reduce local strength, while the corresponding second convex portion increases local strength and reduces deformation.
This argument is not persuasive because the asserted advantage is itself a predictable mechanical consequence of the claimed geometry. Adding material, increasing effective section thickness, or providing a protruding reinforcing contour in a locally recessed region predictably increases rigidity of that region. Thus, the fact that the claimed second convex portion reinforces the region corresponding to the second concave portion does not establish an unexpected result.
Applicant further argues that neither Guo nor Zhou recognizes the problem identified in Applicant's specification.
However, the reason supporting an obviousness determination need not be identical to Applicant's stated reason for making the modification. The relevant question is whether the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill would have provided a reason to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, improving rigidity, reducing deformation, providing structural reinforcement, and controlling stress in a battery pressure-relief region provide sufficient reasons to employ the well-known contoured reinforcing geometry.
Applicant further argues that Zhou does not disclose the claimed transitional fillet.
This argument is acknowledged to the extent that Zhou does not expressly identify a structure using the term "transitional fillet." Nevertheless, the rejection does not rely on Zhou as expressly anticipating this limitation.
Providing a fillet at the junction between a protruding structural portion and a body portion is a conventional mechanical-design expedient for reducing stress concentration at the junction. In the combined Guo/Zhou structure, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to provide such a smooth transition because the pressure-relief region is subjected to mechanical loading and deformation caused by internal battery pressure. Replacing an abrupt junction with a filleted junction would predictably reduce localized stress concentration and improve durability without changing the operation of the pressure-relief assembly.
Applicant's own explanation that the transitional fillet reduces stress concentration and prevents fracture is consistent with the predictable and established mechanical function of a fillet and does not demonstrate a result that would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that newly added claims 18–25 recite additional features not taught or suggested by Guo and Zhou.
Applicant's argument has been considered. The rejection has been modified to more expressly address the newly added limitations.
Regarding claims 18–20, Onnerud expressly teaches placing a blocking mesh/flame arrestor across the conducting vent path of a lithium-ion battery. The reference teaches that the mesh permits pressure-relief gas to escape while inhibiting undesirable flame associated with the venting event. Thus, the use of a blocking structure within or over the conducting portion is not based merely upon arbitrary placement, but upon a known battery-safety arrangement expressly taught in the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Akizuki expressly teaches providing recesses in an insulating spacer for receiving current-collecting tabs of an electrode assembly. Accordingly, accommodation of the electrically conductive tab structure within a recessed insulating region was known in the battery art and provided the predictable advantages of electrical isolation and compact packaging.
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 25, Wakimoto expressly teaches the structural relationship that was previously addressed as a general mechanical design consideration. Wakimoto teaches an insulator protrusion received within a recess of a battery sealing plate and teaches multiple corresponding protrusion/recess arrangements for positioning insulating members relative to the sealing plate. Wakimoto further expressly identifies suppression of displacement of the insulator relative to the sealing plate as an advantage of this configuration.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art establishes that the depth of such recesses is a known structural parameter selected according to the desired component accommodation and structural requirements. Selecting the recess depth sufficient to provide the claimed relative position of the bottom surface would have been a routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejections of claims 18–25.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 112713345), hereinafter Guo, in view of Zhou (CN 102332545).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches an end cover assembly for a battery cell (end cover 41), comprising:
An end cover with a pressure relief through hole ([0034], Fig. 6, pressure relief mechanism 80, opening);
A pressure relief mechanism ([0034], Figs. 6–8, pressure relief mechanism 80):
connected to the end cover ([0034], Fig. 6, pressure relief mechanism 80);
covering the pressure relief through hole ([0034], Figs. 6–8, pressure relief mechanism 80); and
configured to release pressure inside the battery cell when the pressure reaches a threshold ([0034], Figs. 6–8, pressure relief mechanism 80);
A reinforcing mechanism ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82):
located on the side of the end cover facing away from an electrode assembly ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82);
covering at least a part of the pressure relief through hole ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82); and
wherein the reinforcing mechanism is connected to at least a portion of the end cover located at two sides of the pressure relief through hole along a first direction to enhance the strength of the end cover at the pressure relief through hole, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction of the end cover ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82).
Guo further teaches a battery end cover structure (end cover 41) including pressure relief mechanism 80 and reinforcing portion 82 ([0034], Figs. 6–8), wherein reinforcing portion 82 includes a connecting portion connected to the end cover. The reinforcing portion of Guo is configured to enhance structural strength of the region surrounding the pressure relief mechanism and reduce deformation under internal pressure conditions.
However, Guo does not explicitly disclose the specific geometry wherein:
the reinforcing mechanism comprises a connecting portion and a first convex portion, wherein the connecting portion is connected to the end cover, the first convex portion protrudes from a surface of the connecting portion facing away from the electrode assembly and is arranged opposite to the pressure relief through hole; and
the reinforcing mechanism is provided with a first concave portion recessed from the surface of the connecting portion facing the electrode assembly in a direction facing away from the electrode assembly at a position corresponding to the first convex portion.
Zhou discloses a battery end cover structure ([0002]) including a reinforcing mechanism ([0008], [0014], Fig. 3), comprising a connecting portion ([0008], [0014], Fig. 3) having interacting convex and concave portions ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3).
Zhou teaches:
convex portions that protrude from a surface of the connecting portion and are arranged relative to the pressure-relief structure ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3); and
corresponding concave portions recessed from an opposite surface of the connecting portion at positions corresponding to the convex portions ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3).
While Zhou does not explicitly label the concave and convex features as "first" and "second," such distinctions are merely nomenclature used in the present application to differentiate similar structural features. The underlying structure disclosed by Zhou includes concave and convex regions performing similar reinforcing and stress-distribution functions.
Claim 1 further recites that a second concave portion is formed on a side of the end cover facing away from the electrode assembly, and at least a part of the connecting portion is located in the second concave portion and connected to the end cover. Guo does not explicitly teach this limitation.
Zhou teaches a concave portion formed on a side of the end cover and a portion of the reinforcing/end-cover structure positioned relative to and connected within the contoured end-cover region ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3).
Claim 1 further recites that the end cover comprises a body portion and a second convex portion, wherein:
the second concave portion is formed on the body portion;
the second convex portion protrudes from the surface of the body portion facing the electrode assembly;
the pressure relief through hole penetrates through the second convex portion and the body portion; and
a projection of the second convex portion in the thickness direction at least partially overlaps a projection of the second concave portion in the thickness direction.
Guo does not explicitly teach this particular convex/concave end-cover geometry.
Zhou teaches:
a body portion and a convex portion ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3);
a concave portion formed in the body portion ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3);
a convex portion protruding from the surface of the body portion ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3);
a pressure relief structure extending through the contoured region of the end cover ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3); and
corresponding convex and concave regions positioned relative to one another in the thickness direction ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3).
Guo and Zhou are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery safety structures, specifically pressure relief. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Guo's reinforcing part with the teachings of Zhou to enhance rigidity, strength, and deformation resistance.
Incorporating these known structural enhancements into Guo's reinforcing part would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Furthermore, modifying the geometry of a reinforcing structure from flat to contoured represents a routine design optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, especially where the goal is to better distribute stress in pressure-sensitive regions.
More particularly, it would have been obvious to position Zhou's corresponding convex and concave regions in the pressure-relief region of Guo such that their projections at least partially overlap in the thickness direction. Such placement predictably locates additional reinforcing structure in the same localized region affected by the recess and pressure-relief opening, thereby improving local rigidity without unnecessarily increasing the thickness of the entire end cover. The combination would have yielded no unexpected results, but rather the predictable improvement of structural integrity and pressure tolerance of the end cover assembly.
Claim 1 further recites that a transitional fillet is provided at a connection of the second convex portion and the body portion. Guo and Zhou do not explicitly describe the transition between the convex portion and the body portion using the term "transitional fillet." However, Zhou teaches adjoining contoured structural portions in the battery end cover ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3). The transition between such adjoining structural portions may predictably be formed as a smooth transition rather than as a sharp corner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a transitional fillet at the junction between the convex portion and body portion because fillets at the junction of adjoining structural portions are well-known mechanical design features for reducing localized stress concentration and improving structural durability. This modification is particularly applicable to Guo and Zhou because the structures are used in a battery pressure-relief environment in which the end cover may experience deformation and mechanical loading caused by internal battery pressure. Providing a smooth filleted transition would predictably reduce the concentration of stress at the base of the convex portion and thereby reduce the likelihood of fracture. Providing the fillet would therefore have been an matter of design choice and routine mechanical optimization, yielding the predictable result of reduced stress concentration and improved durability without changing the principle of operation of the combined Guo/Zhou pressure-relief structure.
Regarding claim 6, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guo teaches a reinforcing mechanism ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82) that further comprises a conducting portion associated with the pressure-relief structure. Guo further teaches the pressure relief through hole communicating with an external space ([0034], Fig. 6, pressure relief mechanism 80).
Guo fails to explicitly teach that the conducting portion is disposed on the connecting portion and/or the first convex portion and brings the pressure relief through hole into communication with the external space.
Zhou teaches a conducting portion ([0025], explosion-proof hole) disposed in the pressure-relief structure and bringing the pressure relief through hole into communication with the external space.
Guo and Zhou are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of battery safety structures, specifically pressure relief. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the pressure-relief through-hole arrangement of Zhou into the structure taught by Guo. This represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely enabling controlled venting of internal pressure. Such modification would have required no more than routine skill and would have yielded the expected result of safe pressure discharge.
Regarding claim 7, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 6, as stated above.
Guo teaches a reinforcing mechanism having a conducting portion ([0028], [0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82). Guo further teaches that the battery shell includes an opening provided in the side wall or bottom wall in connection with the pressure relief mechanism, thereby establishing a passage for pressure release ([0028]).
Guo fails to explicitly teach that the conducting portion comprises a first through hole disposed on a bottom wall of the first convex portion, wherein the first through hole and the pressure relief through hole are oppositely arranged and communicated.
Zhou teaches a conducting portion ([0025], explosion-proof hole), including a through hole disposed in the pressure-relief structure, wherein the through hole communicates with the pressure relief passage ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82).
Guo and Zhou are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of battery safety structures, specifically pressure relief. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the pressure-relief structure of Guo, which already includes an opening, to incorporate the opposed and communicating through-hole configuration taught by Zhou because both references are directed to battery pressure-relief mechanisms and address the same problem of efficiently releasing internal pressure while maintaining safety and structural integrity. Applying this known configuration to Guo's structure would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 8, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Guo teaches a reinforcing mechanism ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82). Guo further teaches a blocking portion disposed opposite to at least part of the pressure-relief opening and connected to the reinforcing structure (Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82), thereby restricting direct discharge of battery-cell emissions through the reinforcing structure during pressure release.
To the extent Guo does not expressly identify the illustrated portion as a "blocking portion," Zhou teaches a reinforcing pressure-relief structure having portions positioned relative to the vent opening for controlling the discharge path ([0008], [0014], Figs. 1, 3).
Guo and Zhou are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of battery safety structures, specifically pressure relief. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the blocking configuration of the pressure-relief structure in the combined Guo/Zhou assembly because such structure predictably controls the direction of discharged emissions while permitting pressure release and maintaining effective venting.
Regarding claim 9, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 8, as stated above. Guo teaches the pressure-relief mechanism and reinforcing structure disposed relative to the pressure relief opening ([0034], [0048], Figs. 6–8, pressure relief mechanism 80, reinforcing portion 82).
Zhou, as discussed above, teaches contoured pressure-relief structures and controlled venting configurations that complement and reinforce Guo's teachings regarding structured venting and emission control.
Guo and Zhou do not expressly state that a plurality of blocking portions are distributed at intervals along a circumference of the first through hole, with one end of each blocking portion connected to the first convex portion and the other end extending and converging toward the center of the first through hole.
However, arranging multiple support/blocking portions circumferentially around a vent opening and extending those portions inwardly toward the center represents a known structural arrangement for supporting a central opening while maintaining multiple flow passages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a plurality of circumferentially spaced blocking portions rather than a single blocking portion because the number and circumferential distribution of such portions constitute result-effective design variables affecting support, vent-flow area, and control of the discharge path. Selection of a plurality of spaced portions converging toward the center would therefore have been a routine design optimization yielding the predictable results of improved structural support and more controlled venting while maintaining open flow passages between adjacent blocking portions.
Regarding claim 10, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 6, as stated above.
Guo teaches:
two connecting portions respectively connected to two opposite ends of the reinforcing structure corresponding to the claimed first convex portion ([0048], Fig. 6–8, pressure relief mechanism 80, reinforcing portion 82); and
an opening enclosed by the connecting portions and reinforcing structure in another direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction and intersects the second direction ([0048]– [0049], Figs. 6–8).
Zhou, as discussed above, teaches convex/concave pressure-relief structures and controlled venting configurations that complement and reinforce Guo's teachings regarding structured venting.
Guo and Zhou are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of battery safety structures, specifically pressure relief. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the connecting portions taught by Guo within the convex/venting structure of Zhou because both address controlling emissions while allowing effective pressure release. The arrangement of connecting portions extending in relation to intersecting directions represents a known structural configuration for defining and supporting an opening, and incorporating such configuration into the combined system of Guo and Zhou would have yielded predictable results, namely improved control of venting and enhanced safety.
Regarding claim 11, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guo teaches the connecting portion disposed around the reinforcing structure corresponding to the claimed first convex portion ([0034], Figs. 6–8, reinforcing portion 82).
Zhou, as discussed above, teaches convex/concave pressure-relief structures and controlled venting configurations that complement and reinforce Guo's teachings regarding structured venting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange the connecting portion surrounding the first convex portion because such an arrangement provides support around the venting structure and distributes mechanical loads around the pressure-relief region. The arrangement of a connecting portion surrounding a reinforcing structure is a known structural configuration, and incorporating such a configuration into the combined Guo/Zhou structure would have yielded predictable results, namely improved structural support, controlled venting, and enhanced safety.
Regarding claim 12, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above.
Guo further teaches an end cover for a battery cell ([0033], end cover 41) defining a space for accommodating internal components, including an electrode assembly (main body 81). Guo therefore teaches a first body portion having opposed inner and outer surfaces in its thickness direction.
Guo fails to explicitly disclose a first protruding portion wherein the first body portion has at a position corresponding to the first protruding portion, a first recessed portion recessed from the first inner surface in a direction facing away from the electrode assembly, with the first recessed portion configured to accommodate at least a part of the electrode assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to form a recessed portion within the inner surface of the body portion to accommodate the electrode assembly because the body portion already functions as a space for receiving the battery assembly, and providing a localized recess merely refines that space to improve positioning, alignment, packaging efficiency, and component retention.
Providing a corresponding protruding portion on the outer surface is a predictable structural consequence or design variation resulting from forming the recessed geometry and/or maintaining desired local wall thickness. Such modifications represent a matter of design choice and routine structural optimization because they involve arranging known structural features to achieve predictable results of fit, alignment, retention, and efficient use of packaging space without changing the principle of operation of the battery end cover.
Regarding claim 13, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above.
Guo teaches an end cover for a battery cell ([0033], end cover 41) defining a space for accommodating internal components, including an electrode assembly. Guo does not explicitly teach that the first recessed portion has a first bottom surface wherein, in the thickness direction, the first bottom surface is farther from the electrode assembly than the first outer surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to adjust the depth of the recessed portion such that its bottom surface has the claimed relative position because the depth of a recess is a result-effective variable determined by design considerations including the size and geometry of the electrode assembly, desired spacing, positioning, and alignment. Varying the depth of the recessed portion merely affects the extent of accommodation and positioning of the electrode assembly and does not change the function of the structure. Such an adjustment therefore constitutes routine design optimization yielding the predictable result of proper fit and alignment.
Regarding claim 14, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above.
Guo further teaches a battery end cover assembly ([0033], end cover 41) including an insulator ([0067], insulating member) configured to electrically isolate components as recited. Guo therefore teaches an insulator disposed on the side of the end cover facing the electrode assembly and configured to isolate the end cover from the electrode assembly.
Guo does not explicitly disclose that the insulating member includes:
a second body portion having second inner and outer surfaces oppositely arranged in the thickness direction;
a second protruding portion protruding from the second outer surface;
a corresponding second recessed portion recessed from the second inner surface; and
the first recessed portion accommodating the second recessed portion, with the second recessed portion accommodating at least a part of the electrode assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the insulating member with corresponding protruding and recessed portions because such features merely provide mechanical positioning, alignment, nesting, and retention between components.
The protruding and recessed portions function as complementary interfacing structures ensuring proper placement of the insulating member relative to the end cover and electrode assembly. Such interfacing features are routine mechanical design features, particularly in battery assemblies in which precise alignment and compact packaging are desirable.
Providing the corresponding recess of the end cover with dimensions sufficient to accommodate the recessed/protruding geometry of the insulator would similarly have been a dimensional adjustment necessary to permit the components to nest together. Such modifications would not alter the electrical isolation function of Guo's insulating member and would have yielded predictable results of improved fit, alignment, positioning, and retention.
Regarding claim 15, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above.
Guo further teaches a battery cell comprising an end cover ([0033], Fig. 4, battery cell 30, end cover 41). Therefore, Guo teaches the battery cell comprising the end cover assembly of claim 1 as modified above.
Regarding claim 16, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 15, as stated above. Guo further teaches a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells ([0033], Fig. 4, battery module 20).
Regarding claim 17, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above.
Guo further teaches an electrical apparatus comprising the battery ([0033], Fig. 1, Fig. 4, vehicle 1, battery module 20). The vehicle depicted is an electrical apparatus comprising the battery, wherein the battery is configured to provide electric energy.
Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 112713345 A) in view of Zhou (CN 102332545 A), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Onnerud et al. (US 10784492), hereinafter Onnerud.
Regarding claim 18, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 8, as stated above.
Guo and Zhou teach a pressure-relief structure having a conducting portion communicating the pressure-relief through hole with an external space and a reinforcing structure positioned relative to the pressure-relief opening. Guo and Zhou fail to expressly teach wherein the blocking portion is located in the conducting portion.
Onnerud teaches a lithium-ion battery pressure-relief structure including a vent opening and a flame arrestor positioned over and across the vent area. In particular, Onnerud teaches that a mesh may be positioned over the vent area to function as a flame arrestor and permit the vent gas stream to pass through the mesh while reducing or preventing passage/propagation of flame associated with the vented material. See Onnerud, vent assembly 200, flame arrestor 202, vent disc 204, opening 418, and corresponding discussion of the mesh flame arrestor.
Onnerud further teaches that the flame arrestor 202 is mounted with respect to opening 418 and extends across the opening through which material is discharged during venting. Thus, the flame arrestor constitutes a blocking structure located directly in the conducting/venting path.
Guo, Zhou, and Onnerud are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because each is directed to battery safety structures and, more particularly, structures for controlling the release of pressure and material from a battery during an abnormal pressure event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pressure-relief conducting portion of the combined Guo/Zhou structure with the blocking structure taught by Onnerud and to locate the blocking structure within the conducting portion. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification because Onnerud expressly teaches placing the mesh flame arrestor across the vent area so that gases may continue to escape while undesirable flame and/or material associated with the venting event is inhibited from freely passing through the vent. The modification would merely involve incorporating a known battery-vent blocking structure into the known vent passage of Guo and Zhou according to its established function and would have predictably improved the safety of the pressure-relief process without preventing pressure discharge.
Regarding claim 19, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 8, as stated above.
Onnerud teaches the additional limitation of a blocking structure positioned over the conducting/venting opening.
Specifically, Onnerud teaches a top cover defining vent opening 418 and a flame arrestor 202 positioned across the vent opening. The flame arrestor is therefore positioned on a side of the structure defining the vent opening and covers the conducting opening through which the pressure-relief gas passes.
Onnerud explains that the mesh is advantageously positioned over the vent area and permits gas to pass while functioning as a flame arrestor. Guo and Zhou are directed to the structural configuration of a battery end-cover pressure-relief assembly, while Onnerud is directed to controlling the material discharged through a battery pressure-relief opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the blocking portion taught by Onnerud on a surface of the first convex portion of the combined Guo/Zhou structure and over at least a portion of the conducting portion.
The motivation for doing so is expressly suggested by Onnerud: placing the blocking mesh across the vent area permits pressure-relief gas to pass through the opening while reducing the passage or propagation of undesirable flame associated with the venting event. Whether the blocking member is mounted on the surface facing toward or away from the electrode assembly would have depended upon the particular assembly configuration and available mounting surface. Both locations place the blocking member across the same conducting path and allow the blocking member to perform the same known function. Thus, positioning the blocking portion on either claimed side of the first convex portion and covering at least part of the conducting portion would have represented a predictable application of Onnerud's vent-blocking structure to the combined Guo/Zhou assembly.
Regarding claim 20, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 8, as stated above.
Onnerud teaches a flame arrestor or mesh disposed across the battery vent opening such that the arrestor covers the flow passage while permitting vent gases to pass therethrough. Onnerud further teaches mounting the flame arrestor relative to the top cover surrounding the vent opening. Thus, the blocking member is supported by structure surrounding the conducting passage and positioned on a side thereof while extending across the passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the blocking portion of Onnerud to the connecting portion of the combined Guo/Zhou reinforcing mechanism because the connecting portion provides the structural region surrounding and supporting the conducting portion. Providing the blocking portion on either of the two opposite surfaces of the connecting portion in its thickness direction would merely select the available mounting surface while maintaining the blocking portion across the conducting path.
Such placement would have predictably allowed the blocking portion to intercept flame, particles, and other discharged material while maintaining an open path for pressure-relief gas. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the blocking portion on at least one of the two opposite sides of the connecting portion in its thickness direction and to configure the blocking portion to cover at least part of the conducting portion, as claimed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Akizuki et al. (US 20220045404), hereinafter Akizuki.
Regarding claim 21, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above.
Guo further teaches the battery cell having an electrode assembly and electrically conductive components positioned between the electrode assembly and the end cover. Guo and Zhou fail to expressly teach wherein the second recessed portion is configured to accommodate a current collecting member and a tab portion of the electrode assembly.
Akizuki teaches a secondary battery having an electrode assembly and an insulating spacer positioned between the electrode assembly and the battery exterior structure. Akizuki expressly teaches positive and negative electrode current-collecting tabs protruding from the electrode assembly and an insulating spacer having recesses for accommodating the current-collecting tabs.
More specifically, Akizuki teaches a first recess for a positive electrode current-collecting tab and a second recess for a negative electrode current-collecting tab. The reference explains that the current-collecting tabs extend through or are received by the recesses of the insulating spacer.
Akizuki further explains that this recessed configuration permits the current-collecting tabs to be positioned within the insulating structure while avoiding the disadvantages associated with large through openings in the spacer.
Guo, Zhou, and Akizuki are considered analogous art because they are directed to the internal structural arrangement of battery cells, including insulation and electrical connection of the electrode assembly in the region adjacent to the battery cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second recessed portion of the insulating member of the combined Guo/Zhou structure to accommodate the current-collecting structure and tab portion as taught by Akizuki.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Akizuki teaches using recesses in an insulating member to receive the current-collecting tabs while maintaining electrical isolation and efficiently utilizing the limited space between the electrode assembly and battery cover.
Furthermore, positioning the associated current-collecting member in the same recessed region would have been a predictable arrangement because the current-collecting member is electrically connected to the tab and occupies the same end-cover region of the battery cell. The modification would therefore have predictably provided a compact arrangement of the current collector and tab while maintaining electrical insulation from the battery cover.
Claims 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wakimoto et al. (US 20200251694), hereinafter Wakimoto.
Regarding claim 22, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above.
Guo and Zhou fail to expressly teach wherein the second protruding portion of the insulator is accommodated in the first recessed portion of the end cover.
Wakimoto teaches a rectangular secondary battery including a sealing plate, an electrode body, a current collector member, and an insulator disposed between the sealing plate and the current collector member. Wakimoto expressly teaches that the surface of sealing plate 2 on the electrode-body side includes first recess 2c and that first protrusion 70 protrudes from the portion of second insulator 63 facing sealing plate 2. Wakimoto further expressly teaches that first protrusion 70 is disposed in first recess 2c. See Wakimoto, Figs. 6 and 17 and the accompanying description.
Wakimoto explains that accommodating the protrusion of the insulator in the recess of the sealing plate suppresses displacement of the insulator relative to the sealing plate in a plane parallel to the sealing plate. Thus, Wakimoto expressly teaches the claimed structural relationship of an insulator protruding portion being accommodated within a recessed portion of the battery end/sealing plate.
Guo, Zhou, and Wakimoto are considered analogous art because each relates to battery end-cover structures and the positioning and insulation of components associated with an electrode assembly adjacent the battery end cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second protruding portion of the Guo/Zhou insulator to be accommodated within the first recessed portion of the end cover as taught by Wakimoto. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Wakimoto expressly teaches that the protrusion/recess engagement suppresses displacement of the insulator relative to the sealing plate. The modification would also provide predictable positioning and alignment of the insulator relative to the end cover and would require no change to the electrical-isolation function of the insulating member.
Regarding claim 24, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above.
Wakimoto teaches an insulator having a protruding portion and a sealing plate having a corresponding recessed portion. Specifically, Wakimoto teaches first protrusion 70 protruding from second insulator 63 and first recess 2c formed in sealing plate 2, wherein first protrusion 70 is disposed within first recess 2c. See Wakimoto, Figs. 6 and 17. Thus, Wakimoto expressly teaches one protruding portion formed on an insulator, one corresponding recessed portion formed on the battery end/sealing plate, and the protruding portion accommodated within the recessed portion.
Guo, Zhou, and Wakimoto are considered analogous art because each concerns structural arrangements associated with a battery end cover and the positioning of insulating components adjacent the electrode assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Wakimoto's one-to-one protrusion/recess positioning structure in the insulating member of the combined Guo/Zhou end-cover assembly. Wakimoto expressly provides the reason for employing the structure: engagement between the insulator protrusion and sealing-plate recess suppresses displacement of the insulator relative to the sealing plate. Applying this known positioning arrangement to Guo and Zhou would therefore have yielded the predictable result of improved positioning and alignment of the insulating member.
Regarding claim 25, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above.
Wakimoto expressly teaches that more than one protrusion/recess engagement may be provided between insulating members and the sealing plate. In particular, Wakimoto teaches first protrusion 70 of an insulator disposed in first recess 2c of sealing plate 2 and further teaches additional insulator protrusions received within corresponding recesses of the sealing plate.
Wakimoto teaches, for example, second protrusion 71 protruding from first insulator 10 and disposed in second recess 2d of sealing plate 2, and third protrusion 72 protruding from inner insulator 12 and disposed in third recess 2e of sealing plate 2.
Wakimoto therefore expressly establishes that a battery sealing plate may include multiple recesses receiving corresponding protruding positioning structures of insulating members. Wakimoto further explains that the protrusion/recess engagements suppress displacement of the insulating members relative to the sealing plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ two such protrusion/recess engagements on the insulating member of the combined Guo/Zhou structure where increased positional stability is desired. The use of two spaced engagement locations instead of one would predictably provide additional constraint against translational and rotational movement of the insulating member relative to the end cover. The selection of two engagement locations is further supported by the known use of multiple protrusion/recess positioning structures in Wakimoto and would merely apply those known structures according to their established positioning function.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wakimoto.
Regarding claim 23, Guo and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above, including an insulating member having a recessed portion associated with the corresponding protruding geometry. Wakimoto further teaches forming recessed portions in battery end-cover structures to predetermined depths for accommodating corresponding components. Wakimoto expressly teaches, for example, selecting the depth of the sealing-plate recess relative to the thickness of the sealing plate and teaches that the depth may be selected within a substantial portion of the thickness of the sealing plate.
Once the recessed portion of the insulator taught by Guo and Zhou is provided for accommodating battery components, the position of its bottom surface relative to the outer surface is determined by the depth of that recess. 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 second recessed portion such that the bottom surface extends farther away from the electrode assembly than the second outer surface where additional accommodation space is desired. Recess depth is a result-effective variable because increasing the depth directly increases the volume available for accommodating the electrode assembly, tab, and/or current-collecting structure.
One of ordinary skill would have routinely selected the depth based upon the dimensions of the components to be received in the recessed portion, the desired overall battery-cell thickness, required insulating-member thickness, and required mechanical strength. Wakimoto's express teaching of selecting recess depth within the battery end-cover assembly further demonstrates that recess depth was a known structural parameter subject to routine optimization. Accordingly, selecting a depth sufficient to place the second bottom surface farther from the electrode assembly than the second outer surface would have been an optimization yielding the predictable result of increased accommodation space, and claim 23 is therefore unpatentable over the combined references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights