BATTERY CELL AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/6/2026, 1/15/2026, and 3/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: please amend “portionto” to “portion to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 205376589 U and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 211980653 U).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Yang et al. teach an electrical device (Paragraph 0036), comprising a battery cell, comprising a cell body (Fig. 1, element B discloses a secondary cell which inherently comprises a cell body.) and a housing (Fig. 1, element B shows a secondary cell having a case and B1 discloses a top cover.), wherein the housing defines an accommodation cavity, the cell body is accommodated in the accommodation cavity (Fig. 1), and the housing comprises an injection port communicating with the accommodation cavity (Fig. 1, element B11 discloses a liquid injection hole.); wherein the battery cell further comprises:
a sealing pin (Figs. 1-4, element 1 disclose a sealing nail.), vertically mounted at the injection port and fixed to the housing (Fig. 1 shows the sealing nail, element 1, being placed in the liquid injection hole, element B11.), wherein the sealing pin comprises a first through-hole (Fig. 1 shows the sealing nail, element 1, has a through-hole, element 11, which would correspond to the first through-hole.), and the first through-hole communicates with the accommodation cavity (Figs. 1 and 2 show the sealing nail, element 1, with through-hole, element 11, placed in secondary cell, element B.);
a thermally deformable piece, filled in the first through-hole and fixed to the sealing pin (Figs. 1-3, element 3 disclose a hot melt column being placed in the through-hole, element 11.); and
the thermally deformable piece is configured to deform when a temperature is higher than a preset threshold, so that two ends of the first through-hole communicate with each other to form a pressure relief channel (Paragraphs 0011;0026 discloses if the battery temperature becomes high, the hot melt post is melted (i.e. deformed when the temperature is higher than a preset value), gas within the cell then can exit via the through-hole through the sealing nail.).
However, Yang et al. do not teach an elastic element, wherein the elastic element comprises a second through-hole and is set around the sealing pin through the second through-hole and fixed to the injection port.
Wang et al. teach a battery cover plate (Fig. 3, element 100) comprising a cover plate body (Fig. 3, element 10) and a sealing component (Fig. 4, element 20) which comprises a sealing plate (Figs. 3 and 4, element 21) and a sealing nail (Figs. 3 and 4, element 22) which seals the filling hole (Figs. 3 and 4, element 11). Further, the sealing nail (Figs. 3 and 4, element 22) comprises an elastic sleeve (Figs. 3 and 4, element 223-which would provide a second through hole being sleeved on the sealing nail and being fixed to the filling hole.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the elastic element of Wang in order to improve sealing effect.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 2 and the electrical device according to claim 14. Further, Wang et al. teach wherein the elastic element (Fig. 2, element 223) comprises a fixing portion (Fig. 2, element 2233) and a sealing portion coaxially connected to the fixing portion (Fig. 2, element 2231), the second through-hole runs through the sealing portion from the fixing portion (Fig. 2, element 2232), the fixing portion is fixed to the injection port, and the sealing portion extends into the accommodation cavity (Figs. 2 and 4, element 2231).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the elastic element of Wang in order to improve sealing effect.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 2 and the electrical device according to claim 14. However, Wang et al. do not teach wherein along a direction perpendicular to a direction in which extends from the fixing portion to the sealing portion, in a part of the sealing portion placed in the accommodation cavity, a cross- sectional area of the sealing portion at an end facing towards the injection port is larger than a cross-sectional area of the injection port.
Wang et al. disclose the injection hole is in the form of a step shape (Paragraph 0031) comprising a series of holes (Figs. 3 and 4, elements 111-113). These holes have cross-sectional areas that are larger than the sealing portion and the first hole (Fig. 4, element 114) is nearly equal to the sealing portion as it provides room for the sealing (Figs 3 and 4, element 221/223). Therefore, this is reversal of parts MPEP 2144.04 VI A: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 3 and the electrical device according to claim 16. Further, Wang et al. teach wherein the sealing pin (Fig. 4, element 22) comprises a pinhead (Fig. 4, element 221) and a pin rod coaxially connected to the pinhead (Fig. 4, element 222), the first through-hole runs through the pin rod from the pinhead (Fig. 4, element 2221), the pin rod is mounted onto the injection port (Fig. 4, element 222 is mounted in the third injection hole, element 113), the pinhead is fixed onto the housing (Figs. 3 and 4 shows element 221 fixed in the top cover, element 10.), and the elastic element is set around the pin rod (Figs. 3 and 4 show the elastic element, 223, set around the pin rod, element 222.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the elastic element of Wang in order to improve sealing effect.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell of claim 4. Further, Wang et al. teach wherein along the direction perpendicular to the direction in which extends from the fixing portion to the sealing portion, a cross-sectional area of the pinhead is larger than the cross- sectional area of the injection port (Fig. 4 shows the cross-sectional area of element 221 is larger than the cross-sectional area of the third injection hole, element 113.), and a rim of the pinhead is hermetically fixed to the housing by welding (Paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the elastic element of Wang in order to improve sealing effect.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell of claim 4. Further, Wang et al. teach wherein the fixing portion and the sealing portion are integrally formed, and/or the pinhead and the pin rod are integrally formed (Fig. 4 shows elements 221 and 222 as integrally formed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the elastic element of Wang in order to improve sealing effect.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 18-20, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 4 and the electrical device according to claim 17. However, they do not disclose the dimensions of the claimed parts of the battery.
Diameter and distance measurements/dimensions are merely examples of Changes in Size/Proportion: MPEP 2144.04 IV A: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) ; In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 205376589 U and Wang et al. (CN 211980653 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 113131083 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the thermally deformable piece is an insulation piece which comprises at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyphenylene ether, or poly(acrylonitrile-co-styrene-co-butadiene); and/or the elastic element comprises at least one of ethylene-propylene rubber, silicone rubber, polyurethane rubber, or fluororubber.
Shen et al. teach a thermal deformation element (Fig. 2, element 421) which comprises polyethylene or polypropylene (Paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang and Wang with Shen in order to accommodate certain preset temperatures.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yang and Wang et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the housing is a stainless-steel shell.
Shen et al. disclose the case containing the battery is comprised of stainless steel (Paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang and Wang with Shen in order to withstand impact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,912,090 A and EP 0793283 B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 17th, 2026
Prosecution Insights