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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, replace “the the” with --the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, remove the word “defines”. 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 10 and 11 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.
In claim 10, line 7, what are the units of the value 0.55? As the expression relates to the sum of a length and a thickness, it appears the units should be a distance measurement instead of unitless. As claim 11 depends from claim 10, it is rejected for the same reason.
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.
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) 1-9 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (CN 215989104 U, hereinafter “Gu”; listed in the IDS filed 12 April 2024; using the attached English machine translation for citations), in view of Bai (CN 211017217 U; listed in the IDS filed 12 April 2024; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Gu teaches a shell (housing shell 21, see Fig. 3; [0075]) for accommodating an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22, see Fig. 3; [0075]), comprising:
a circumferential wall (see Fig. 3), configured for enclosing the electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22, see Fig. 3; [0075]); and
a groove group (groove 242 provided on pressure relief body 241 of pressure relief device 24, see Figs. 3-5; [0082]-[0083]), comprising a plurality of first grooves disposed on the circumferential wall in a circumferential direction of the circumferential wall (see Fig. 3), wherein the circumferential wall is configured to crack along the first grooves when pressure or temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to relieve the pressure inside the shell (see [0083]).
Gu is silent to wherein the groove group further comprises a plurality of second grooves disposed on the circumferential wall in the circumferential direction, the second grooves are alternated with the first grooves in the circumferential direction, and a residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the the second groove is located is greater than that of the circumferential wall where the first groove is located.
Bai teaches a groove group comprising a plurality of first grooves (first grooves 21, see Figs. 9-13; [0089]) and wherein the groove group further comprises a plurality of second grooves (second grooves 23, see Figs. 9-13; [0089]) disposed surrounding the first grooves (see Figs. 9-13), and a residual thickness of the wall where the second groove is located is greater than that of the wall where the first groove is located (see Fig. 13 and [0109]-[0112]). Bai teaches that by maintaining this thickness relationship between the first groove 21 and the second groove 23, the explosion proof valve 2 can open along the first groove 21 when it is opened, but not along the second groove 23. At the same time, the second groove 23 can also guide the explosion-proof valve 2 to open (see [0025] and [0113]).
In view of Bai’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shell of Gu to include wherein the groove group further comprises a plurality of second grooves disposed surrounding the first grooves, and a residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the second groove is located is greater than that of the circumferential wall where the first groove is located because it helps to direct the discharge of heat and gas generated by battery overcharging towards the first grooves to relieve the pressure inside the shell. Furthermore, the combination of Gu and Bai would result in the second grooves disposed on the circumferential wall in the circumferential direction, wherein the second grooves are alternated with the first grooves in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein a depth of the second groove is less than that of the first groove (Bai: see Fig. 13, wherein the depth of the first grooves 211, 212 is greater than the depth of the second groves 231), so that the residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the second groove is located (Bai: see Fig. 13 thickness of wall under groove 231) is greater than that of the circumferential wall where the first groove (Bai: see Fig. 13 thickness of wall under grooves 211, 212) is located (Bai: see Fig. 13 and [0109]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gu and Bai is silent to wherein a width of the first groove is less than that of the second groove. However, 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. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gu and Bai is silent to wherein a difference between the residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the second groove is located and the residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the first groove is located is not less than 0.01 mm. However, if the difference between the residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the second groove is located and the residual thickness of the circumferential wall where the first groove is located is very small, the second groove would not be able to play a guiding role for the first groove. On the other hand, if the difference is very large, then it would not be easy to manufacture the thin wall thickness of the first groove and the extremely thin wall thickness may lead to inaccurate valve opening pressure. Therefore, there must be an optimum difference between the residual thicknesses of the circumferential wall between the first and second grooves and it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gu and Bai is silent to wherein in the groove group, a total number of the first grooves and the second grooves is N, and an angle between adjacent first groove and second groove is 360°/N. However, absent persuasive arguments, the particular placement of the first and second grooves around the circumferential wall is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the first groove and/or the second groove are disposed on an outer surface of the circumferential wall (Gu: grooves 242, see Figs. 3 and 7; [0111]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the circumferential wall has a pressure relief portion (Gu: grooves 242, which defines a pressure relief portion 2411, see Figs. 6-7; [0134]), the pressure relief portion is defined by the first groove (Gu: grooves 242, which defines a pressure relief portion 2411, see Figs. 6-7; [0134]) defines, and the pressure relief portion is configured to open with the first groove as a boundary when the pressure or temperature inside the shell reaches the threshold, so as to relieve the pressure inside the shell (Gu: see [0134]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the first groove (Gu: grooves 242, see Figs. 6-7) is an unclosed groove with a distance between two ends (Gu: see Figs. 6-7)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the first groove (Gu: grooves 242, see Figs. 6-7) comprises a first groove portion (Gu: 2411b, see Fig. 6), a second groove portion (Gu: 2411a, see Fig. 6), and a third groove portion (Gu: 2411c, see Fig. 6), the first groove portion and the third groove portion are opposite in an extension direction of the circumferential wall (Gu: see Figs. 6 and 7), and the first groove portion, the second groove portion, and the third groove portion are connected sequentially to define the pressure relief portion (Gu: see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gu and Bai is silent to wherein a contour of the second groove is in the same shape as that of the first groove. However, absent persuasive arguments, the particular shape of the contour of the second groove would have been a matter of choice of which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein a plurality of groove groups are disposed on the circumferential wall, and the plurality of groove groups are arranged in the extension direction of the circumferential wall (Gu: see Figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the circumferential wall is cylindrical (Gu: see Figs. 3 and 7; [0134]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches wherein the shell further comprises:
a bottom wall (Gu: see Fig. 3; [0075]), located at one end of the circumferential wall and integrally formed with the circumferential wall (Gu: see [0075]), wherein the circumferential wall forms an opening at an end opposite to the bottom wall (Gu: see [0075]); and
an end cover (Gu: end cap 23, see Fig. 3; [0075]), configured for covering the opening (Gu: see [0075]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches a battery cell (Gu: battery cell 20, see Figs. 2-3; [0072]-[0074]), comprising:
an electrode assembly (Gu: electrode assembly 22, see Fig. 3; [0075]); and
the shell according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above), wherein the shell is configured for accommodating the electrode assembly (Gu: see [0075]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches a battery (Gu: battery 100, see Fig. 1; [0067]), comprising:
the battery cell according to claim 18 (see rejection for claim 18 above); and
a box (Gu: box 10, see Fig. 2; [0071]), configured for accommodating the battery cell (Gu: battery cell 20, see Figs. 2-3; [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches an electrical device (Gu: see [0037], [0064]), comprising the battery according to claim 19 (see rejection for claim 19 above).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gu and Bai as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20090105547 A, hereinafter “Lee”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gu and Bai teaches an unclosed groove (Gu: see Figs. 6-7) but is silent to wherein the first groove is a closed groove connected end to end.
Lee teaches non-limiting forms of a vent (see Figs. 2a-2f, 210a-210f; p. 9-11). Lee teaches both a closed groove (see Fig. 2b) and an unclosed groove (see Fig. 2d).
In view of Lee’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute in the closed groove connected end to end of Lee for the unclosed groove of the combination of Gu and Bai because Lee recognizes the different vent types as art equivalents.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gu, Bai, and Lee teaches wherein a contour of the first groove is circular (Lee: see Fig. 2b) or elliptical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 25 July 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights