DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox (US 3,647,556).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Cox discloses a battery 2, case 4, and a storage battery cover 6 comprising:
a cell assembly including a plurality of battery cells (col. 1, line 72-col. 2, line 1);
at least one venting portion (Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one venting portion includes a lid 32 (hole cover) surrounded by a hole 30 (first region) formed by cutting a surface of the case and a hinge portion (second region) connected to a surface of the case, and a plug (sealing member) covering the first region,
wherein the hole cover is lifted from a surface of the case in a direction of an external side of the case and comprises a venting hole in the at least one venting portion, and
wherein the sealing member seals the first region to prevent gas from flowing through the first region in a state in which the hole cover covers the venting hole (Fig. 1).
The top of the battery cover is capable of functioning as a venting portion. Figure 1 to Cox provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cox discloses wherein the venting hole is in a portion surrounded by the first region and the second region when the hole cover is lifted (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Cox discloses wherein the hole cover is folded in a direction of an external side of the case with respect to the second region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cox discloses the battery cover is injection molded polypropylene (col. 1, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 6, the sealing member would be capable of opening when sufficient pressure is reached.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Cox discloses a rectangular-shaped lid where the width and length directions are arbitrary; a maximum width of the first region has a value greater than a length of the second region with respect to a direction parallel to the second region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Cox discloses wherein at least a portion of the second region has a thickness smaller than that of the case (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, instant claim is regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, Cox discloses a hole cover and a first region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the hole cover has a shape capable of being lifted in a second direction such that gas passing through the venting hole in a first direction is discharged in the second direction in the state in which the venting hole is open, and the second direction is different from the first direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Cox discloses a plurality of venting portions, and wherein the plurality of venting portions are configured such that gas discharged from each of the venting portions is directed in the same direction. (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Cox discloses wherein the at least one venting portion includes a plurality of venting portions, and wherein the plurality of venting portions include a first venting portion disposed in a column, and a second venting portion disposed in a column in a position spaced apart from the first venting portion (Fig. 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.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 3,647,556).
Regarding claim 20, Cox discloses a battery 2, case 4, and a storage battery cover 6 comprising:
a cell assembly including a plurality of battery cells (col. 1, line 72-col. 2, line 1);
at least one venting portion (Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one venting portion includes a lid 32 (hole cover) surrounded by a hole 30 (first region) formed by cutting a surface of the case and a hinge portion (second region) connected to a surface of the case, and a plug (sealing member) covering the first region,
wherein the hole cover is lifted from a surface of the case in a direction of an external side of the case and comprises a venting hole in the at least one venting portion, and
wherein the sealing member seals the first region to prevent gas from flowing through the first region in a state in which the hole cover covers the venting hole (Fig. 1).
The top of the battery cover is capable of functioning as a venting portion.
Cox does not teach a plurality of battery devices; however, instant limitation is viewed as duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to that plurality of battery devices may be used increase voltage/current or capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 17-19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (US 2015/0064514: Figs. 9-14); Jarvis et al. (US 2017/0170439: Figs. 21C, 24, and 26A-26B); Zeng et al. (US 2022/0013853: Fig. 9a); Choi et al. (US 2022/0294056: Fig. 10); Li et al. (US 2022/0320679: Figs. 6-7); Feltham et al. (US 2022/0416359: Fig. 10); Kim et al. (US 2024/0039114); Hirano et al. (US 2024/0283117: Figs. 3-9); Ko et al. (US 2024/0304941: Fig. 1); Jang et al. (US 2025/0105433: Fig. 1); Jang et al. (US 2025/0158219: Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights