RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the claims, filed 02 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-18 remain pending in the application.
Claims 3, 7, 12, and 16 are cancelled in the application.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9 as being anticipated by Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, pages 2-4, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 3 and 8 as unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Zhao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, pages 4-6, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 10-11 and 13-18 as unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Baek (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0070697) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, pages 7-8, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 12 and 17 as unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Baek (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0070697) further in view of Zhao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, pages 9-10, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 13-14, and 19 as unpatentable over Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, pages 10-13, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 3 and 12 as unpatentable over Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801), further in view of Lin (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0138492) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, page 13-14, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 6 and 15 as unpatentable over Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801), further in view of Yeo (US Patent No. 7,479,347) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, page 14-15, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 7-8 and 16-17 as unpatentable over Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801), further in view Cook (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0145850) made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026, page 15-16, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 July 2026.
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 (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 supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Zhao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U and CN-207664137-U.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a battery top cover sheet (top cover), which comprises a top cover body (first cover), wherein an electrolyte filling structure, a boss (second cover), and a process groove (feeding or filling groove) are arranged on the top cover body ([0030], [0045], and fig. 2 ref. #110, #120, #300). The electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove (injection groove) located on an upper surface (second surface) of the top cover body and a filling port (through hole) penetrating through the top cover body ([0045] and fig. 2 ref. #112, #210, #220). The boss is located on a lower surface (first surface) of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port, and the process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the boss ([0032], and fig. 2 ref. #120, 220, #300).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port is provided with a fillet ([0014], and fig. 2, the rounded corners at the edges of filling port, ref. #210, #220).
Wang further teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 (D1, [0054]) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H (H2, [0012]) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 (derived from T2=D2+(D1-H2), see fig.2 above, and [0054]) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. Wang also teaches that the diameter of the filling port is less than the width of the sinking groove (injection groove), represented herein as D ([0012]).
Wang is silent on the specific diameter of the filling port or the width of the sinking groove.
Zhao teaches a battery with a cover plate including an electrolyte filling hole (abstract). The hole includes a sinking groove, which exactly matches the proportions of the sealing nail cap used in a sealing nail for the electrolyte filling hole ([0037]-[0038], and fig. 2 and 3, ref. #2). The width of the sealing nail cap, and in turn the width of the sinking groove, is 7.5-8.0 mm (outer diameter of the sealing nail cap, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of the sealing groove as taught by Zhao in the structure of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ([0010]).
Modified with the sinking groove width of Zhao, the diameter of the filling port of modified Wang must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm. A lower limit of 4*(H+T2-T1) is -18.8 (derived from 4*(0+0.3-5) =
-18.8) and an upper limit of 6*(H+T2-T1) is 9 (derived from 6*(1+1.5-1) = 9). Therefore, based on the ranges as taught by modified Wang, the limitation 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) falls within the claimed ranges for T1, H, T2, and D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body (fig. 2 ref. #120, the width of the boss decreases from the top to the bottom), and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member ([0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 (D1, [0054]) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H (H2, [0012]) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 (D2+(D1-H2, see fig.2 above, and [0054]) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. These ranges encompass an embodiment wherein T1≥T2≥H. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction ([0013], and fig. 2 ref. #210).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches a taper angle of the sinking groove may range from 90° to 170° ([0049], α is 0° to 80° from vertical, which is 90° to 170° from horizontal, and fig. 2 ref. #210). This overlaps with the claimed range of 110° to 111°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang is silent on the radius ranges of the fillet. However, as modified Wang has a sinking groove width that must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm, and as each side of the boss in the sinking groove cannot be more than half of the width of the sinking groove (see fig. 2, ref. #210, 120, otherwise no filling port would exist), the radius of the fillet must be 2 mm or less. This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a depth of the process groove ranging from 0 mm to 1 mm ([0010], and fig. 2 ref. #300). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Zhao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137), further in view of Baek (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0070697). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U and CN-207664137-U.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a battery top cover sheet (top cover), which comprises a top cover body (first cover), wherein an electrolyte filling structure, a boss (second cover), and a process groove (feeding or filling groove) are arranged on the top cover body ([0030], [0045], and fig. 2 ref. #110, #120, #300). The electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove (injection groove) located on an upper surface (second surface) of the top cover body and a filling port (through hole) penetrating through the top cover body ([0045] and fig. 2 ref. #112, #210, #220). The boss is located on a lower surface (first surface) of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port, and the process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the boss ([0032], and fig. 2 ref. #120, 220, #300).
Wang further teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port is provided with a fillet ([0014], and fig. 2, the rounded corners at the edges of filling port, ref. #210, #220).
Wang further teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 (D1, [0054]) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H (H2, [0012]) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 (derived from T2=D2+(D1-H2), see fig.2 above, and [0054]) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. Wang also teaches that the diameter of the filling port is less than the width of the sinking groove (injection groove), represented herein as D.
Wang is silent on the specific diameter of the filling port or the width of the sinking groove.
Zhao teaches a battery with a cover plate including an electrolyte filling hole (abstract). The hole includes a sinking groove, which exactly matches the proportions of the sealing nail cap used in a sealing nail for the electrolyte filling hole ([0037]-[0038], and fig. 2 and 3, ref. #2). The width of the sealing nail cap, and in turn the width of the sinking groove, is 7.5-8.0 mm (outer diameter of the sealing nail cap, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of the sealing groove as taught by Zhao in the structure of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ([0010]).
Modified with the sinking groove width of Zhao, the diameter of the filling port of modified Wang must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm. A lower limit of 4*(H+T2-T1) is -18.8 (derived from 4*(0+0.3-5) =
-18.8) and an upper limit of 6*(H+T2-T1) is 9 (derived from 6*(1+1.5-1) = 9). Therefore, based on the ranges as taught by modified Wang, the limitation 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) falls within the claimed ranges for T1, H, T2, and D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Wang
Modified Wang is silent to the battery also comprising a housing and a core.
Baek teaches a battery including a core (electrode assembly) and a housing (can housing) which contains the core, and a battery top cover sheet (cap assembly) to seal the top of the can (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the core and housing as taught by Baek with the battery top cover sheet of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this combination as the housing would contain the electrolyte needed for battery function, and the core is required for a battery to function.
Regarding claim 11, Wang also teaches a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body (fig. 2 ref. #120, the width of the boss decreases from the top to the bottom), and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member ([0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang also teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 (D1, [0054]) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H (H2, [0012]) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 (D2+(D1-H2, see fig.2 above, and [0054]) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. These ranges encompass an embodiment wherein T1≥T2≥H. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 14, Wang also teaches a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction ([0013], and fig. 2 ref. #210).
Regarding claim 15, Wang also teaches a taper angle of the sinking groove may range from 90° to 170° ([0049], α is 0° to 80° from vertical, which is 90° to 170° from horizontal, and fig. 2 ref. #210). This overlaps with the claimed range of 110° to 111°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 17, Wang is silent on the exact radius of the fillet. However, as appears in figure 2, the arc of the fillet belongs to one corner of a circle that has a diameter represented by approximately D1-H2. D1 ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm ([0054]) and H2 ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm ([0012]). Therefore, the diameter of the fillet ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, resulting in a radius of the fillet that ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm. This overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 18, Wang also teaches a depth of the process groove ranging from 0 mm to 1 mm ([0010], and fig. 2 ref. #300). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801), of Lin (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0138492), and Cook (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0145850). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP- 2007018915-A and CN-111989801-A.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, and 17 Takeyama teaches a battery comprising a housing (battery case), a core (battery elements), and a battery top cover sheet (lid), wherein an upper end of the housing is opened, the core is arranged in the housing, and the battery top cover sheet covers the upper end of the housing to close the housing ([0011], and fig. 1 ref. #2, #5).
The battery top cover sheet comprises a top cover body an electrolyte filling structure (electrolyte injection hole and related components) and a process groove (circular recess) arranged on the top cover body ([0011], and fig . 1 ref. #7, #21, #22).
The electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove located on an upper surface of the top cover body (stepped portion) and a filling port (electrolyte injection hole) penetrating through the top cover body ([0011], and fig. 1 ref. #21, #7). The process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body, as it is within the sinking groove.
Takeyama is silent to the battery top cover sheet containing a boss, the boss being located on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port, the process groove being arranged around the boss, a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body, and the boss and the top cover body being an integrated member
Xu teaches a secondary battery including a housing for an electrode assembly and a battery top cover sheet (cover) sealing an opening in the housing and having an electrolyte filling structure (electrolyte solution injection port) (abstract). Xu also teaches the electrolyte filling structure containing a boss, the boss being located on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port ([0099], and fig. 7 ref. #48P). The width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body , and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member (as they are the both a part of the cover plate ref. #220) (fig. 2, ref. #48P).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the boss structure as taught by Xu in the electrolyte filling structure of Takeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as the boss of Xu allows for increased fastening and sealing performance with a stopper that seals the electrolyte filling structure once the electrolyte is added ([Xu, [0105]).
Modified Takeyama would have the process groove arranged around the boss, as the boss is required to be directly adjacent to the filling port, while there is separation between the process groove and the filling port (Takeyama, fig. 1 ref. #7, #22).
Takeyama further discloses a diameter of the filling port is D, which is 0.5 mm, a thickness of the top cover body is T1, which is 1 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H, which is 0.5 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2, which is 0.5 mm ([0018]).
Modified Takeyama is silent to the height of the boss.
Lin discloses a liquid-injection hole of a secondary battery in the top cover of the battery case (abstract). As part of this electrolyte filling structure, a boss (annular boss) is included to contact a stopper used to seal the electrolyte filling structure once the electrolyte has been introduced ([0060]). The thickness of the boss is 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the boss of modified Takeyama with the height between 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm as taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as when the depth is larger the structural strength of the top cover and the stopper may be affected, and when the height is smaller the stress release capacity will be decreased.
When the boss has a height ranging from 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm, the depth of the filling port must also increase by the same amount as to still penetrate into the battery housing and allow the electrolyte to fill the battery housing. Therefore, a depth of the filling port, T2, will range from 0.6 mm to 6 mm.
With the aforementioned values for D, T1, H, and T2, the minimum value for 4*(H+T2-T1) is 0.4 mm (derived from 4*(0.5+0.6-1)=0.4) and the maximum value for 6*(H+T2-T1) is 33 mm (derived from 6*(0.5+6-1)=33). Therefore, since the diameter of the filling port is 0.5 mm, there lies a value within this range in which 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Takeyama is silent to a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet, and a radius of the fillet ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
Cook teaches a plated tubular lattice structure, which is considered an analogous art as Cook teaches a filling port (through-hole) with a sinking groove (counter-bored hole) that will be sealed with a separate structure (abstract [0154], [0181], and fig. 38, ref. #300, #302 ). Cook also teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet, and the radius of the fillet having a maximum radius of 20% of the diameter of the filling port ([0180]). This would result in a fillet with a maximum radius of 0.1 mm for modified Wang. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a fillet with a radius of 0.1 mm as taught by Cook in the joint between the sinking groove and filling port of modified Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as fillets are an effective way to distribute stress over a broader area, increasing durability of the component, as well as the specific radius of the fillet ensures that a fastener later used to seal the filling port will maintain sufficient bearing area, in turn still maintaining sufficient contact with the sinking groove and filling port (Cook, [0180]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Takeyama teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 is 1 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H 0.5 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 is 0.5 mm. This satisfies the claimed limitation of T1≥T2≥H.
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Takeyama is silent to a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction.
Xu further teaches a diameter of the sinking groove (second inlet) decreases gradually in a downward direction, as the sinking groove is a tapered groove ([0017], and fig. 1 ref. #292).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the diameter of the sinking groove of Takeyama decrease gradually in a downward direction as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as it allows for easier more of the electrolyte that falls into the sinking groove to flow into the filling port, in turn ensuring the maximum amount of electrolyte ends up inside of the battery casing.
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Takeyama also teaches a depth of the process groove (circular recess) is 0.2 mm ([0018]). This value resides within the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed value "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05.I)
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Takeyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/018915) in view of Xu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801), of Lin (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0138492), and Cook (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0145850), further in view of Yeo (US Patent No. 7,479,347). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP- 2007018915-A and CN-111989801-A.
Takeyama, Xu, Lin, and Cook are relied upon as described above.
Modified Takeyama is silent to a taper angle of the sinking groove ranging from 110° to 111°
Yeo teaches a prismatic battery having an electrode assembly mounted in a prismatic battery case, with an electrolyte injection hole formed in a battery top cover (base plate) mounted to an open upper end of the battery housing (battery case). The sinking groove (inside upper end) of the electrolyte injection hole is formed in a downward taper structure (abstract). Yeo also teaches that the angle of the taper angle of the sinking groove ranges from 110° to 160° (20° to 70° from top of the sinking groove, or 110° to 160° from the bottom of the sinking groove, page 9, col. 3, lines 19-21), which encompasses the claimed range of 110° to 111°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to us a taper angle of 110° to 160° as taught by Yeo in the sinking groove of modified Takeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range of angles as when the angle is too high it is easy to damage the sinking groove when sealing it with a stopper, and when the angle is too low it can be difficult to provide a high enough coupling force between the sinking groove and a stopper (page 9, col. 3, lines 22-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 02 July 2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 02 April 2026 have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 02 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 02 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections by way of Wang in view of other references of record have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Applicant’s remarks, pages 6, 7, and 8). In response, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, for each included modification there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (see the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections above). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues that the specific process groove, sinking groove, and boss have specific advantages to them (Applicant’s remarks, pages 6-7). In response, the Examiner recognizes the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues that Wang does not teach the filling-port diameter D to be controlled relative to the specific height of H+T2-T1 by which the boss exceeds the lower surface of the top cover body, nor do the cited secondary reference cure this deficiency. The Examiner partially disagrees with this argument. While it is true that Wang does not teach the specific filling-port diameter D to be controlled relative to the specific height of H+T2-T1 by which the boss exceeds the lower surface of the top cover body, when taken in view of Zhao, this limitation is met (see the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections for claim 1 above).
Applicant further argues that the previous office action, mailed 02 April 2026, does not provided an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wang, or any other cited base reference, to arrive at the claimed dimensional relationship. The Examiner disagrees with this argument. As said above,
“Wang further teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 (D1, [0054]) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H (H2, [0012]) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 (derived from T2=D2+(D1-H2), see fig.2 above, and [0054]) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. Wang also teaches that the diameter of the filling port is less than the width of the sinking groove (injection groove), represented herein as D.
Wang is silent on the specific diameter of the filling port or the width of the sinking groove.
Zhao teaches a battery with a cover plate including an electrolyte filling hole (abstract). The hole includes a sinking groove, which exactly matches the proportions of the sealing nail cap used in a sealing nail for the electrolyte filling hole ([0037]-[0038], and fig. 2 and 3, ref. #2). The width of the sealing nail cap, and in turn the width of the sinking groove, is 7.5-8.0 mm (outer diameter of the sealing nail cap, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of the sealing groove as taught by Zhao in the structure of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ([0010]).
Modified with the sinking groove width of Zhao, the diameter of the filling port of modified Wang must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm. A lower limit of 4*(H+T2-T1) is -18.8 (derived from 4*(0+0.3-5) =
-18.8) and an upper limit of 6*(H+T2-T1) is 9 (derived from 6*(1+1.5-1) = 9). Therefore, based on the ranges as taught by modified Wang, the limitation 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) falls within the claimed ranges for T1, H, T2, and D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)”
As stated above, for Wang to teach the relationship “4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1),” as claimed in the newly amended claim 1, the specific diameter of the filling port or and width of the sinking groove must be taught. Zhao teaches the width of the sealing groove, and provides a motivation for using that width (It allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ([0010]), and the diameter of the filling port can be determined from the teaching of Wang (the diameter of the filling port is less than the diameter of the sinking groove, ([0012]). Therefore, modified Wang teaches a range for D that overlaps with the claimed range, and therefore a prima facia case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 02 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections by way of Takeyama in view of Xu of record have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner uses a conclusory inference for the limitation “a process groove arranged around the boss,” as Xu does not teach a process groove arranged around a boss (Applicant’s remarks, page 9-10). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Xu does not teach a process groove arranged around a boss, Xu is used for the teaching of a boss around the filling port ([0099], and fig. 7 ref. #48P). The process groove is taught by Takeyama (circular recess, [0011], and fig. 1 ref. #21, #22). As seen in fig. 1 of Takeyama, there is space between the process groove and the filling port. When the boss of Xu is incorporated into the structure of Takeyama, the boss will be immediately around the filling port. Since there is space between the filling port and the process groove, it would lead to the process groove surrounding the boss.
Applicant further argues that the specific process groove, sinking groove, and boss have specific advantages to them (Applicant’s remarks, pages 9 and 10). In response, the Examiner recognizes the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues that Takeyama and Xu, in view of Lin, Yeo, or Cook, do not teach the dimensional relationship “4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1),” nor the fillet at the joint between the sinking groove and the filling port, as claimed in the newly amended claim 1. To this the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in the 35 U.S.C §103 rejection for claim 1 above:
Takeyama further discloses a diameter of the filling port is D, which is 0.5 mm, a thickness of the top cover body is T1, which is 1 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H, which is 0.5 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2, which is 0.5 mm ([0018]).
Modified Takeyama is silent to the height of the boss.
Lin discloses a liquid-injection hole of a secondary battery in the top cover of the battery case (abstract). As part of this electrolyte filling structure, a boss (annular boss) is included to contact a stopper used to seal the electrolyte filling structure once the electrolyte has been introduced ([0060]). The thickness of the boss is 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the boss of modified Takeyama with the height between 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm as taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as when the depth is larger the structural strength of the top cover and the stopper may be affected, and when the height is smaller the stress release capacity will be decreased.
When the boss has a height ranging from 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm, the depth of the filling port must also increase by the same amount as to still penetrate into the battery housing and allow the electrolyte to fill the battery housing. Therefore, a depth of the filling port, T2, will range from 0.6 mm to 6 mm.
With the aforementioned values for D, T1, H, and T2, the minimum value for 4*(H+T2-T1) is 0.4 mm (derived from 4*(0.5+0.6-1)=0.4) and the maximum value for 6*(H+T2-T1) is 33 mm (derived from 6*(0.5+6-1)=33). Therefore, since the diameter of the filling port is 0.5 mm, there lies a value within this range in which 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Takeyama is silent to a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet, and a radius of the fillet ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
Cook teaches a plated tubular lattice structure, which is considered an analogous art as Cook teaches a filling port (through-hole) with a sinking groove (counter-bored hole) that will be sealed with a separate structure (abstract [0154], [0181], and fig. 38, ref. #300, #302 ). Cook also teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet, and the radius of the fillet having a maximum radius of 20% of the diameter of the filling port ([0180]). This would result in a fillet with a maximum radius of 0.1 mm for modified Wang. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a fillet with a radius of 0.1 mm as taught by Cook in the joint between the sinking groove and filling port of modified Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as fillets are an effective way to distribute stress over a broader area, increasing durability of the component, as well as the specific radius of the fillet ensures that a fastener later used to seal the filling port will maintain sufficient bearing area, in turn still maintaining sufficient contact with the sinking groove and filling port (Cook, [0180]).
Applicant further argues that independent claims 10 is patentable “for at least the same reasons discussed for claim 1” (Applicant’s remarks, page 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the reasoning given in the above response to Applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
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 Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 08/11/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights