DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections involving claim 1 have been updated to address its new limitation. Claim 25 has been determined to be allowable after amendment.
The central aspect pertaining to both the rejection below and Applicant’s arguments is what features of claim should be given patentable weight. Applicant cites in paragraph 4 on page 7 of the Remarks MPEP 2143.03 which states “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” Applicant posits that features of claim 1 have been ignored by the rejection and all of the subsequent arguments specifically addressing how the prior art matches the claim language relies on these ignored limitations. However, it is the Office’s position that none of the claim language is being ignored. Instead, based on how claim 1 is written, multiple features of claim 1 are arbitrary and not positively recited. This is an important distinction and appropriate guidance is found in MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus which comprises one element: a mask. That mask has multiple limitations that further define it. The mask has a central opening and at least one blocking structure. The mask is configured to be mounted to an exterior surface of a terminal structure of a cap of a battery cell having a current interrupt device under the cap within the battery cell. But it is important no not that a battery cell is not present in the structure of claim 1—nor does it appear intended to be. Claim 21 recites a battery subassembly comprising a battery cell and a mask. This claim clearly states that both the battery cell and mask are present in the device. Claim 1 by contrast does not. Claim 1 only requires that the mask is configured (structured or adapted) to be mounted to the cell in the manner described. These features are considered by the Office. But since the cell is not recited, its structural aspects are arbitrary. It can be any cell so long as a mask can be mounted in its terminal structure. Moreover, the claim does not require that the mask has certain physical features (e.g. a shape) specific to this intention. Thus, the Office considers a mask capable of being inserted into any: terminal structure of a cap of a battery cell having a current interrupt device under the cap within the battery cell to be sufficient to meet the limitations. All rejections relating to claim 1 are based upon this position. The arguments presented by Applicant pertaining to the rejections all rely on the features not given patentable weight in the manner described by Applicant.
In regards to the rejection of claim 21 under Kim, Applicant asserts at the top of page 10 that “This rejection is clearly deficient at least because Kim's ‘cap-up 71’, which is cited as the ‘mask’ of claim 21, is part of Kim's cap assembly 70, and the ‘cap-up 71’ itself forms the exterior surface of Kim's ‘secondary battery’. Kim's ‘cap-up 71’ is therefore not ‘mounted to’ an exterior surface of a cap.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office has defined the cap as element 72 and the mask as element 71. The mask 71 is mounted to an exterior surface of the cap 72 as shown in Figure 1A; that the mask and cap are both part of 70 or that 71 is an exterior surface of the battery do not obviate that fact.
In regards to the rejection of claim 21 under Su ‘643 (it should be noted that Applicant incorrectly states “Su ‘634’”), Applicant assert on page 10 that “the features of claim 21 appears to merely select parts of Su '[643]'s battery cell 100 at random without any regard for the meaning of the words in the claim.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms "battery cell" and "cap" and "current interrupt device" and "mask" have no special definition in the instant specification. Therefore, they are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Element 20 is considered a battery cell since it has a positive electrode, and negative electrode, and a separator (paragraph 92). Element 34 is considered a cap because it is part of end cap assembly 30 (paragraph 93). Element 35 is considered a current interrupt device because it participates in interrupting the current during adverse conditions (paragraph 103). Element 31 is considered a mask because it is an end cap for the seal (paragraph 95).
Applicant asserts on page 11 that the liquid of claim 23 is that which is in contact with the outer surface of the mask. But the liquid is not a structural element of claim 21. Claim 21 is intentionally drawn to a structure which prevents liquid from flowing through the opening. The liquid is not necessarily present. Otherwise, the patentable scope of claim 21 would always and in every circumstance include an external liquid to the device. It is the Office’s position that claim 21 is written in a manner to avoid that scope but the arguments deem that liquid as somehow necessary simultaneously. The Applicant can amend claim 21 to positively recite the liquid. This would add merits to the arguments for claim 23 and obviate the rejections.
In regards to claim 24, Applicant asserts that “the ‘supporting member 36’ of Su '[643] is not part of the ‘end cap 31’ of Su '[643] (which the Office Action cites as the mask of claim 21).” The Office has cited further elements in the same drawing to show how Su ‘643 includes all of the claimed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as Su ‘125bject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as Su ‘125bject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale Su ‘125pporting 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su ‘125 (US 2023/0048125 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Su ‘125 discloses an apparatus comprising: a mask 23 comprising a central opening (see Figure 5) and a blocking structure 234 (paragraph 99) capable of being mounted over an opening in the cap of a battery cell (see Figure 3). The claim does not a require: a terminal structure of a cap, a battery cell, a current interrupt device (CID) under the cap of the cell, an opening in the cap, a liquid, and a space between the cap and CID. Instead, only the mask (most plainly shown in instant Figure 9) is recited. The claim only requires that the prior art mask be capable of being mounted to an exterior surface of a terminal structure of a cap of a battery cell such that the blocking structure prevents liquid from flowing through an opening of the cell. It is the Office’s position that the mask of Su ‘125 is capable of such a function given that the dimensions of the terminal structure and opening are arbitrary.
Regarding claim 2, Su ‘125 discloses a plurality of blocking structures (see Figure 5). The openings are not positively recited.
Regarding claims 3-5, Su ‘125 discloses a bridge structure (the unlabeled central ring around an opening of Figure 5) and that the blocking structures extend outwardly from the structure. The openings are not positively recited.
Regarding claim 7, neither the liquid nor the battery cell is positively recited.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (US 2023/0118321 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fang discloses an apparatus comprising: a mask 13 comprising a central opening 13112 and a blocking structure 13122 (paragraph 130) capable of being mounted over an opening in the cap of a battery cell (see Figure 3). It should be noted that multiple claimed elements are not positively recited and thus not given patentable weight. The claim does not a require: a terminal structure of a cap, a battery cell, a current interrupt device (CID) under the cap of the cell, an opening in the cap, a liquid, and a space between the cap and CID. Instead, only the mask (most plainly shown in instant Figure 9) is recited. The claim only requires that the prior art mask be capable of being mounted to an exterior surface of a terminal structure of a cap of a battery cell such that the blocking structure prevents liquid from flowing through an opening of the cell. It is the Office’s position that the mask of Fang is capable of such a function given that the dimensions of the terminal structure and opening are arbitrary.
Regarding claim 2, Fang discloses a plurality of blocking structures (see Figure 7). The openings are not positively recited.
Regarding claims 3-5, Fang discloses a bridge structure (the unlabeled central ring around an opening of Figure 7) and that the blocking structures extend outwardly from the structure. The openings are not positively recited.
Regarding claim 6, Fang discloses that mask 13 comprises a plurality of openings 13121 between the blocking structures 13122 (see Figure 7), wherein the openings are capable of exhausting gas (paragraph 135).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Fang discloses that mask 13 is rubber (paragraph 94).
Regarding claim 10, Fang discloses implementation in a vehicle (paragraph 84).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2010/0136388 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses an apparatus comprising: a battery cell 10 comprising a cap 72 having an opening (hole in center, Figure 1A) and a current interrupt device 73 under the cap 72 (paragraph 74); and a mask 71 mounted to an exterior surface of the cap 72 over the opening of the cap to seal the battery (paragraph 30). It is the Office’s position that the cap assembly 70 sealing the battery is sufficient to meet the ability for the mask to prevent unclaimed liquid from flowing between the cap and current interrupt device.
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses that the opening of the cap 72 is capable to allow gas to exit the battery when the interrupt device 73 is triggered (paragraph 94).
Regarding claim 23, the liquid is not positively recited.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su ‘643 (US 2022/0320643 A1).
Su ‘643 discloses an apparatus comprising: a battery cell 20 comprising a cap 34 having a plurality of openings 341 (Figure 4) and a current interrupt device 35 under the cap 34 (paragraph 101); and a mask 33 mounted to an exterior surface of the cap 34 with blocking structures 333 over the openings of the cap (paragraph 97). It is the Office’s position that the cap assembly 30 sealing the battery (paragraph 119) is sufficient to meet the ability for the mask to prevent unclaimed liquid from flowing between the cap and current interrupt device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the reference disclose that the mask has a bridge with radially extending blocking structures which are tucked into corresponding hole
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725