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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0062778 to Mille.
Regarding claims 1-4, Mille teaches a battery case made of metal (the case is inclusive of element 210, which is formed of metal, ¶0046, 0077; gasket 216 eliminates short circuits between elements, ¶0040, 0060) provided with an explosion-proof valve, the explosion-proof-valve comprising
A folded part 210a (Figs. 2, 2a, ¶0038) which is continuous with a plate part (see Marked-up fig. 2A below) configuring the battery case and formed by folding the plate part
A thin plate part (see Marked-up Fig. 2 below) which is continuous with the folded part 210a and arranged (concentrically, as can be seen best in Fig. 3) inside the folded part
A thick plate part (Marked-up Fig. 2) which is continuous with the thin plate part and formed thicker than the thin plate part in a middle of the explosion-proof valve
A breaking groove 210c which is arranged in the thin plate part and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is exerted thereon (¶0039, 0048).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Plate part)][AltContent: textbox (Thin plate part)][AltContent: textbox (Thick plate part)]
PNG
media_image1.png
278
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
244
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Mille teaches the limitations of claim 1. The folded part 210a and the thin plate part have a circular shape (Fig. 3).
Per claim 3, Mille teaches the limitations of claim 1. A shape of the thick plate part is similar to shape of the folded part 210a and the thin plate part (each part is circular in shape, Fig. 3; MPEP §2126).
Per claim 4, Mille teaches the limitations of claim 1. A concave groove having an arc shape (groove 108 of Fig. 1 has an arc shape at its end) is formed outside the thick plate part (Fig. 1, 0031; MPEP §2126).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mille as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Mille teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mille teaches that the thickness of a plate part can be chosen according to whether it is intended to be strong enough to be folded or whether it is intended to be weak enough to break (¶0026, 0050, 0071, 0074). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the thick plate part and the thickness of the plate part independently, and therefore the ratio of the thicknesses, so that each part can perform the function of that part.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 6, Mille teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mille teaches that the area of a plate part can be chosen to ensure that enough planar surface is present so that the plate can be efficiently worked and processed (¶0050, 0068), and interact with other elements of the battery (¶0030-0036). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the area of the thick plate part and the area of the thin plate part independently, and therefore the ratio of the areas, so that each part can perform be efficiently worked and interact suitably with other elements of the battery.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights