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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 17 November 2023, but claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2022-0047703, filed on 18 April 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 November 2023, 03 January 2025, and 14 February 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “a venting device according to claim 1” should read “the venting device according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of "the outside" in the last line of the claim is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation is interpreted to mean “an outside”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected, as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject
matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Kharma teaches a venting device (1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a fixed member (7, Fig. 1, [0089]) provided with a through-hollow body (8, Fig. 1, [0068]), and provided with a first stepped part (first stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, below) on an inner circumferential surface of an upper portion of the body (9, Fig. 1);
a movable member (11, Fig. 1) inserted into and movably coupled to an inside of the fixed member (7), and provided with a plurality of venting holes (14 and 15, Fig. 1); and
a second stepped part (second stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, below) on a lower outer circumferential surface of the movable member (11) facing the first stepped part (see Annotated Fig. 1, below); and
a gap-maintaining member (10, Fig. 1) exerting a repulsive force between the fixed member (7) and the movable member (11, Fig. 1, see [0108]), wherein the movable member (11) is movable relative to the fixed member (7) between a first position (Fig. 1) maintained by the repulsive force exerted by the gap-maintaining member (11), and a second position (Fig. 2) when an external force exceeding the repulsive force is applied (pressure greater than first threshold, [0108]), and
wherein a number of venting holes (14 and 15, Fig. 5) in the movable member connecting with the outside (outside through hole 25, Fig. 1, [0025], see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) in the first position (Fig. 1) and second position (Fig. 2) is different (see explanation below).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
518
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is the position of the Examiner that Kharma teaches the number of venting holes in the movable member connecting with the outside in the first position shown in Fig. 1 is zero, but in Fig. 2, hole 14 is connecting with the outside.
Regarding claim 4, Kharma teaches wherein the gap-maintaining member (10, Fig. 1) comprises an elastic member (elastic element 10, [0074]) installed on at least one of the first stepped part (first stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, under claim 1) and the second stepped part (second stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, under claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Kharma, teaches the elastic member (elastic member 10, Fig. 1, [0074]),
but does not teach wherein the elastic member is a leaf spring.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Kharma teaches the elastic member (10, Fig. 1) is a leaf spring (leaf spring, [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify elastic element of Kharma, such that it is a leaf spring, because Kharma teaches such is an effective equivalent component that would yield the same predictable result ([0074). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached), in view of Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2013/0052497).
Regarding claim 2, Kharma, teaches the gap-maintaining member (10, Fig. 1),
but does not teach wherein the gap-maintaining member comprises a first magnet provided on the fixed member and a second magnet provided on the movable member.
However, Noh teaches a gap maintaining member (120, Fig. 2) comprises a first magnet provided on the fixed member (122, Fig. 2) and a second magnet (121, Fig. 2) provided on the movable member (121, Fig. 2, see explanation below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the gap-maintaining member of Kharma, such that it comprises a first and second magnet, as taught by Noh, to solve the increase in internal pressure of an energy storage device with a simple configuration ([0041]).
It is the position of the Examiner that the second magnet and movable member of Noh are the same structure (121, [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Kharma, in view of Noh, teaches the first magnet (122, Fig. 2 of Noh, see modification in rejection of claim 2, above), is provided on the first stepped part (first stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, under claim 1, see explanation, below), and the second magnet (121, Fig. 2 of Noh, see modification in rejection of claim 2, above), is provided on the second stepped part (second stepped part, Annotated Fig. 1, under claim 1, see explanation, below).
It is the position of the Examiner that following the modification taught in the rejection of claim 2, the first magnet (122 of Noh) and second magnet (121 of Noh) would necessarily adopt the connectivity of the gap-maintaining member of Kharma (10); as such, the first magnet would thus be provided on the first stepped part (Annotated Fig. 1) and the second magnet would be provided on the second stepped part (Annotated Fig. 1), to accomplish the same structure of Kharma and function of resisting a compressive force (see [0105]) between the fixed member (7) and the movable member (11).
Further, Noh teaches the first magnet (122, Fig. 2) is provided on a first stepped part (first stepped part, Annotated Fig. 2, below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of the gap-maintaining member, of Kharma, in view of Noh, such that the magnet is provided on the stepped part, as taught by Noh, to accomplish mounting the magnets in the passage as to apply repulsion force to one another (see [0032]).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
400
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached), in view of He et al. (EP 3940860).
Regarding claim 10, Kharma, teaches the fixed member (7, Fig. 1) and the movable member (11, Fig. 1),
but does not teach further comprises a barrier coupled to the fixed member to support a lower surface of the movable member.
However, He teaches a barrier (48, Fig. 8, [0062]) coupled to the fixed member (24, Fig. 8) to support a lower surface of the movable member (62, Fig. 8, [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the venting device of Kharma, such that it further comprises a barrier coupled to the fixed member, supporting the movable member, as taught by He, to protect the vent channel system during installation ([0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Kharma, in view of He, teaches the barrier (48, Fig. 8 of He, see modification in rejection of claim 10, above),
but does not teach the barrier is an impermeable fiber or metal foil.
However, He teaches the barrier (sealing material 48/74, [0062]) is a metal foil (metal membrane and/or foil, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the barrier of Kharma, in view of He, to be a metal foil, as taught by He so the barrier protects the vent channel system during installation and breaks to guide vent gases to the vent channel ([0043 and 0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Kharma, in view of He teaches the barrier (48, Fig. 8 of He, see modification in rejection of claim 10, above) and the repulsive force (10 pushes 11 to close opening, [0072]),
but does not teach wherein the strength of the barrier is less than the repulsive force.
However, in an alternate embodiment, He teaches the strength of the barrier (48, Fig. 6) is less than the repulsive force (see [0071], explanation below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the barrier of Kharma, in view of He, such that has a strength less than that of the repulsive force, as taught by He, to allow for venting at a specific overpressure pressure ([0038]).
It is the position of the Examiner that He teaches the strength of the barrier is less than the repulsive force because He teaches the sealing material (48) is broken “firstly”, followed by “secondly” the bursting of the safety vent (58, Fig. 6) due to a buildup of pressure in the vent channel system (22, Fig. 6, see [0071]). The additional buildup of pressure suggests that the barrier strength is weaker than the force maintaining closure of the system, analogous to the repulsive force of Kharma, in view of He. Further, He teaches the movable member (closure plate, 62, Fig. 8) may be opened at a higher pressure than the vent opening pressure ([0038]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached), in view of Guen (U.S. Pub. US 2016/0260960).
Regarding claim 14, Kharma teaches a battery (see [0054]) comprising a case (24, Fig. 1), at least one battery cell housed within the case (23, Fig. 1, [0097]), and a venting device according to claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, above),
but does not teach a prismatic secondary battery, comprising a case, at least one side which forms an open surface; an electrode terminal connected to an electrode lead of the at least one battery cell; a terminal plate coupled to the open surface of the case; and a venting device coupled to the terminal plate.
However, Guen teaches a prismatic secondary battery (101, Fig. 1, [0065]), comprising a case (26, Fig. 1), at least one side which forms an open surface (top surface comprising gap 70, Fig. 6 [0063]); an electrode terminal (22, Fig. 6) connected to an electrode lead (42, Fig. 6) of the at least one battery cell (cell of electrode assembly 10, Fig. 2); a terminal plate (31, Fig. 6) coupled to the open surface of the case (top surface comprising gap 70); and a venting device (28, Fig. 6) coupled to the terminal plate (31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the secondary battery of Kharma, such that it comprises a case with an electrode terminal plate connected to an electrode lead and open surface venting device, as taught by Guen, so that the terminal plate may provide positioning support for the ventilation element to prevent excess heat overcharge and reduce pressure inside the battery ([0008 and 0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharma (WO2022043621A1, Machine Translation attached), in view of Guen (U.S. Pub. US 2016/0260960) and further in view of Wass et al. (ES 1285249U, using U.S. Pub. US 2023/0187768 as Translation).
Regarding claim 15, Kharma, in view of Guen, teaches terminal plate (31, Fig. 6 of Guen, see rejection of claim 14 for modification),
but does not teach wherein an O-ring is interposed between an engagement surface of the terminal plate and the venting device.
However, Guen teaches an insulator (54, Fig. 6) interposed between an engagement surface (see Fig. 6) of the terminal plate (31, Fig. 6) and the venting device (8, Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery of Kharma, in view of Guen, such that an additional component is interposed between an engagement surface of the terminal plate and the venting device, as taught by Guen, to facilitate the terminal plate in providing positioning support for the ventilation element to prevent excess heat overcharge and reduce pressure inside the battery ([0012 and 0066]).
However, Wass teaches an O-ring (9, Fig. 1) between an engagement surface of the battery and the venting device (1, Fig. 1, [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an O-ring as the additional element between the engagement surface of the terminal plate and the venting device of Kharma, in view of Guen, as taught by Wass to block air from exiting directly outside ([0012]).
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wass et al. (ES 1285249U, using U.S. Pub. US 2023/0187768 as Translation), in view of Wang et al. (CN 109698298, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Wass teaches a venting device (1, Fig. 2), comprising:
a fixed member (2, Fig. 2) provided with a through-hollow body (hollow inside, see [0025]), and provided with a first stepped part (24, Fig. 2) on an inner circumferential surface of an upper portion of the body (2);
a movable member (3, Fig. 2) inserted into and movably coupled to an inside of the fixed member (3 slides between both sides of 2, Fig. 2¸ [0025]), and provided with a plurality of venting holes (34 and open end of plunger 3, Fig. 2, see explanation, below); and
a second stepped part (8, Fig. 2) on a lower outer circumferential surface of the movable member (left side of 3, Fig. 2) facing the first stepped part (24, see Fig. 2); and
wherein the movable member is movable relative to the fixed member between a first position (first opening position, Fig. 2, [0022]), and a second position (second opening position, Fig. 3, [0023]) when an external force (0.7 bar pressure, [0019]) is applied, and
wherein a number of venting holes in the movable member connecting with the outside (see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) in the first position (first opening position) and second position (second opening position) is different (see explanation below).
but does not teach a gap-maintaining member exerting a repulsive force between the fixed member and the movable member, wherein the movable member is movable relative to the fixed member between a first position maintained by the repulsive force exerted by the gap-maintaining member, and a second position when an external force exceeding the repulsive force is applied.
It is the position of the Examiner that Wass teaches one of the plurality of venting holes is the open end of the plunger 3 (see [0010]), is connected with the outside through ventilation element 4 (see airflow arrows, Fig. 2). Thus, Wass teaches a number of venting holes connecting with the outside in the first position (Fig. 2) is only one: the open end of plunger 3. Further, Wass teaches a greater number of venting holes are connected with the outside in the second position (second opening position, Fig. 3); perforations/holes (34) are additionally connected with the outside via holes 23 (see airflow arrows, Fig. 3).
However, Wang teaches a gap-maintaining member (16, Fig. 3) exerting a repulsive force between the fixed member (1, Fig. 3, see explanation below) and the movable member (16 pushes 14 to close hole, Page4:L19-23), wherein the movable member (14, Fig. 3) is movable relative to the fixed member (1) between a first position (closed, see Page4:L19-22) maintained by the repulsive force exerted by the gap-maintaining member (16), and a second position (opened, Page4:L16-19) when an external force exceeding the repulsive force is applied (strong pressure, Page4:L17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the venting device of Wass, such that it comprises a gap-maintaining member, as taught by Wang, to achieve the purpose of automatically controlling the opening and closing of the first pressure relief hole (see Page4:L22-23).
It is the position of the Examiner that the gap-maintaining member (16) exerts a repulsive force between the fixed member (1) and the movable member (14) because 16 pushes indirectly on the fixed member (1) through the first stepped part (18) which Wang teaches as a component of the fixed member (1, see Page4:L38-39).
Regarding claim 6, Wass, in view of Wang, teaches wherein the plurality of venting holes (34 and open end of plunger 3, Fig. 2) comprises at least one first venting hole (open end of plunger 3) connecting to the outside at both the first (first opening position, Fig. 2) and second positions (second opening position, Fig. 3), and at least one second venting hole (34) connecting to the outside only at the second position (second opening position, see explanation under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 7, Wass, in view of Wang, teaches wherein the at least one first venting hole (open end of plunger 3, Fig. 2) is disposed on an upper surface of the movable member (right surface of 3, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Wass, in view of Wang, teaches wherein the at least one second venting hole (34, Fig. 2) is disposed on a side surface (top surface of 3, Fig. 2) of the movable member (3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wass et al. (ES 1285249U, using U.S. Pub. US 2023/0187768 as Translation), in view of Wang et al. (CN 109698298, Machine Translation attached) and further in view of Mack et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2015/0030893).
Regarding claim 9, Wass, in view of Wang, teaches the at least one first venting hole (open end of plunger 3, Fig. 2) and the at least one second venting hole (34, Fig. 2) is a plurality of second venting holes (perimetric perforations 34, [0032]),
but does not teach wherein the at least one first venting hole is a plurality of first venting holes and a cross-sectional area of each second venting hole is larger than a cross-sectional area of each first venting hole.
However, Mack teaches the at least one first venting hole is a plurality of first venting holes (116, Fig. 6) and a cross-sectional area of each second venting hole (102, Fig. 6) is larger than a cross-sectional area of each first venting hole (116 between approximately 0.1% and 50% of the size of 102, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first venting hole of Wass, in view of Wang, such that it is a plurality of holes, each smaller than each second venting hole, as taught by Mack, to enable a small amount of venting during normal operation ([0048]), while being sized to prevent objects from entering the internal chamber ([0047]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wass et al. (ES 1285249U, using U.S. Pub. US 2023/0187768 as Translation), in view of Wang et al. (CN 109698298, Machine Translation attached) and further in view of Hernandez Saab et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0026302) and Kwag et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0097203).
Regarding claim 13, Wass, in view of Wang, teaches the at least one first venting hole (open end of plunger 3, Fig. 2) and the upper surface of the movable member (side of 3 covered by 4, Fig. 2),
but does not teach wherein the at least one first venting hole is a plurality of first venting holes, and wherein the upper surface of the movable member is provided with one or more fracture portions surrounding the plurality of first venting holes, the fracture portions fracturing upon application of a force in excess of the external force that moves the movable member to the second position.
However, Hernandez Saab teaches the movable member (308, Fig. 3) is provided with one or more fracture portions (deformable portions, [0036]), the fracture portions fracturing upon application of a force (deform at third maximum flow rate exceeding 50 kPa, [0036]) in excess of the external force that moves the movable member to the second position (displace edges of umbrella seal at 10kPa pressure, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the upper surface of the movable member of Wass, in view of Wang, such that it is provided with fracture portions fracturing under excess of the external force, as taught by Hernandez Saab, to create an enlarged opening to allow rapid venting at a maximum pressure ([0050]).
Wass, in view of Wang and Hernandez Saab, still does not teach wherein the at least one first venting hole is a plurality of first venting holes, and wherein the upper surface is provided with one or more fracture portions surrounding the plurality of first venting holes.
Further, Kwag teaches wherein the at least one first venting hole is a plurality of first venting holes (150h, Fig. 7), and the upper surface (top of 151, Fig. 7) is provided with one or more fracture portions (150f, Fig. 7) surrounding the plurality of first venting holes (150h, [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the upper surface of Wass, in view of Wang and Hernandez Saab, such that it comprises fracture portions surrounding the plurality of venting holes, as taught by Kwag, to increase the area of gas discharge at high pressures, thereby increasing the speed of discharge ([0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights