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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 3, 2025 and August 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fuhr.
Regarding claim 1, Fuhr teaches an electrochemical cell 124 (“a cylindrical secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059] and Figure 10) comprising a can or housing 126 having a generally cylindrical main body (“a case of which a lower end is open to accommodate the electrode assembly”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059]), a bottom 130 at one end of the can or housing 126 (“a cap plate coupled to the lower end of the case”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059] and Figure 10), and a cell element 125 (e.g., a wound, cylindrical cell element) (“an electrode assembly”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059]). Fuhr teaches the bottom 130 is circular and, therefore, includes “a connection area connecting a central area and an edge area” (see e.g., Annotated Fuhr Figure 10B). Fuhr teaches the bottom 130 includes a vent 152 (see e.g., paragraph [0062]) located in at least one of the central area or the connection area (see e.g., Annotated Fuhr Figure 10B) and includes at least one annular or circular groove 140 (see e.g., paragraph [0066]) with a smaller thickness than other portions of the bottom 130 (“a vent is located in at least one of the central area or the connection area and has a smaller thickness than other areas”) (see e.g., Figure 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fuhr Figure 10B
Regarding claim 6, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent 152 is provided in the central area of the bottom 130 and has a circular ring shape continuously formed along a circumference of the central area of the bottom 130 (“wherein the vent is provided in the central area of the cap plate and has a circular ring shape continuously formed along a circumference of the central area of the cap plate”) (see e.g., Annotated Fuhr Figure 10B).
Regarding claim 7, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 6, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the at least one annular or circular groove 140 and the outer groove 142 of the vent 152 has an inner diameter is approximately within the range of 0.5 to 1 times the diameter of the cell element 125 (“wherein an inner diameter of the vent is in a range of about 0.5 to 1 times a core diameter of the electrode assembly”) (see e.g., Figure 10).
Regarding claim 10, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent 152 includes radial scoring 150 provided in between the outer groove 142 and inner groove 140 (“wherein the vent is provided in the connection area and has at least one linear shape extending from the central area”) (see e.g., paragraph [0069] and Figure 10B).
Regarding claim 11, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent 152 includes radial scoring 150 (a plurality of linear grooves) provided in between the outer groove 142 and inner groove 140 (“wherein the vent comprises a plurality of linear shapes spaced apart from each other based on the central area”) (see e.g., paragraph [0069] and Figure 10B).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches another embodiment wherein an electrochemical cell 1424 that includes a can or housing 1426 and a bottom portion 1430 located at a first end of the housing 1426 (see e.g., paragraph [0084]). Fuhr teaches the central area of the bottom portion 1430 is curved towards the cell element 1425 as compared to the edge area of the bottom portion 1430 (“wherein the cap plate is formed in a shape in which the central area is curved toward the electrode assembly compared to the edge area”) (see e.g., Figures 17-17A) in order to aide in the proper laser welding of the current collector to the vent 1452 (see e.g., paragraph [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the bottom plate 30 of Fuhr to have the central area of the bottom plate curved towards the cell element as compared to the edge area of the bottom portion as taught by another embodiment of Fuhr in order to aide in the proper laser welding of the current collector to the vent (see e.g., paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 3, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches another embodiment wherein an electrochemical cell 1424 that includes a can or housing 1426 and a bottom portion 1430 located at a first end of the housing 1426 (see e.g., paragraph [0084]). Fuhr teaches the central area and the connection area of the bottom portion 1430 is curved towards the inside of the can or housing 1426 as compared to the edge area of the bottom portion 1430 (“wherein the central area and the connection area of the cap plate are formed concavely toward an inside of the case compared to the edge area”) (see e.g., Figures 17-17A) in order to aide in the proper laser welding of the current collector to the vent 1452 (see e.g., paragraph [0108]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Lim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20240266690 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lim.
Regarding claim 4, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr does not explicitly teach wherein the vent has a notch formed in an inner surface of the cap plate.
However, Lim teaches a cylindrical secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Lim teaches the secondary battery includes a cap plate 40 (see e.g., paragraph [0181] and Figure 13). Lim teaches the cap plate 40 includes a venting portion 41 that corresponds to an area that is structurally weaker than the surrounding area so that it can be easily ruptured when internal pressure is applied (see e.g., paragraph [0181]) and is formed by notching one side or both sides of the cap plate 40 (“wherein the vent has a notch formed in an inner surface of the cap plate”) (see e.g., paragraph [0181] and Figure 13) in order to secure the smooth rupturing of the venting portion 41 (see e.g., paragraph [0201]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr to include a notch formed on the inner surface of the cap plate, as taught by Lim, in order to secure the smooth rupturing of the venting portion (see e.g., paragraph [0201]) when internal pressure is applied (see e.g., paragraph [0181]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Noriko et al. (JPH1092397 A), hereinafter referred to as Noriko.
Regarding claim 5, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the cap plate in an area in which the vent is formed is in a range of about 0.1 to 0.3 times a thickness of a material of the cap plate.
However, Noriko teaches an arc-shaped groove with a center axis provided on the bottom face of a battery can (see e.g., Abstract). Noriko teaches the bottom surface has a thickness of 0.45 mm, and the depth H of the groove of the thin portion is 0.40 mm and, thus, the thickness of the bottom surface with the groove is 0.05 mm (see e.g., paragraph [0011]) in order to provide less variation of the breaking of the bottom surface when relieving pressure (see e.g., paragraph [0007]). Therefore, the thickness of the bottom surface in an area in which the groove is formed is 0.11 times the thickness of the bottom surface, meeting the claim limitation of “wherein a thickness of the cap plate in an area in which the vent is formed is in a range of about 0.1 to 0.3 times a thickness of a material of the cap plate.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the thickness of the bottom surface wherein the vent is disposed of Fuhr to have a thickness of 0.11 times the total thickness of the bottom surface, as taught by Noriko, in order to to provide less variation of the breaking of the bottom surface when relieving pressure (see e.g., paragraph [0007]).
Claims 8-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Rots (U.S. 4,987,520 A).
Regarding claim 8, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent is provided in the central area and the connection area of the bottom (“wherein the vent is provided in the central area and the connection area of the cap plate”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 10B).
Fuhr does not explicitly teach wherein the vent has a cross shape extending from a center of the cap plate toward the connection area.
However, Rots teaches an electronic component comprising an electronic element and a housing (see e.g., Abstract). Rots teaches the housing 10 has a predominantly flat bottom in which an excess pressure protection is provided (see e.g., col. 3, lines 5-9). Rots teaches the bottom 31 is provided with two intersecting corrugations 33, 33’ which are each provided with a notch 34, 34’ and intersect in the center of the bottom (“wherein the vent has a cross shape extending from a center of the cap plate toward the connection area”) (see e.g., Figure 3c and col 3, lines 60-66). Rots teaches the location of the notches contributes to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr to include two intersecting corrugations that intersect in the center to have a cross shape, as taught by Rots, in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 8, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the length of the corrugations is approximately the diameter of the electronic component of the housing (“wherein a length of each of a horizontal line and a vertical line of the vent is in a range of about 0.5 to 5.5 times a core diameter of the electrode assembly”) (see e.g., Rots Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 12, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent 152 includes radial scoring 150 in the shape of a plurality of linear shapes (“wherein the vent comprises a plurality of linear shapes”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 10B).
Fuhr does not explicitly teach the lengths of the linear shapes are different from each other.
However, Rots teaches an electronic component comprising an electronic element and a housing (see e.g., Abstract). Rots teaches the housing 10 has a predominantly flat bottom in which an excess pressure protection is provided (see e.g., col. 3, lines 5-9). Rots teaches the bottom 31 has two intersecting corrugations 33, 33’ which are each provided with a notch 34, 34’ (see e.g., col 3, lines 62-64), wherein the length of each of the intersecting corrugations are different from each other (“lengths of the linear shapes are different from each other”) (see e.g., Figure 3b). Rots teaches the location of the notches contributes to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr to include two corrugations with different lengths, as taught by Rots, in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the approximate length of one of the corrugations 33 is slightly longer than that of the other corrugations 33’ (“wherein a length of a relatively long portion of the linear shapes is in a range of about 0.1 to 10 times a length of a relatively short portion thereof”) (see e.g., Rots Figure 3b).
Regarding claim 14, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent 152 includes radial scoring 150 in the shape of a plurality of linear shapes (“wherein the vent comprises a plurality of linear shapes”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 10B).
Fuhr does not explicitly teach the thicknesses of the cap plates of the linear shapes are different from each other.
However, Rots teaches an electronic component comprising an electronic element and a housing (see e.g., Abstract). Rots teaches the housing 10 has a predominantly flat bottom in which an excess pressure protection is provided (see e.g., col. 3, lines 5-9). Rots teaches the bottom 21 has two corrugations 23, 23’ which are provided at some distance from a notch 24 (see e.g., Figure 2d and col. 3, lines 54-56). Rots teaches the thickness of the bottom plate with a corrugation than the thickness of the bottom plate with a notch (see e.g., Figure 1b); therefore, Rots teaches the thickness of the bottom of the corrugations and notches are different from each other (“the thicknesses of the cap plates of the linear shapes are different from each other”) in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr to include corrugations and notches with different thickness of the bottom, as taught by Rots, in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Rots, teaches the thickness of the bottom of the housing is larger along the widths of the corrugations than it is along the length of the corrugations and notches (“wherein the vent is formed so that a thickness of the cap plate at a short portion of the linear shapes is greater than the thickness of the cap plate at a long portion of the linear shapes”) (see e.g., Rots Figure 1b).
Regarding claim 16, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Fuhr does not explicitly teach wherein the vent comprises 1 to 4 linear shapes.
However, Rots teaches an electronic component comprising an electronic element and a housing (see e.g., Abstract). Rots teaches the housing 10 has a predominantly flat bottom in which an excess pressure protection is provided (see e.g., col. 3, lines 5-9). Rots teaches the bottoms 241 include one to four linear shapes (“wherein the vent comprises 1 to 4 linear shapes”) (see e.g., Figures 2a-2d and 3a-3d). in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr to include one to four corrugations and notches with on the bottom, as taught by Rots, in order to contribute to favorable release characteristics and to a suitable reproducibility of venting pressure (see e.g., col. 3, lines 3-5).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Tsuruta et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200144676 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuruta.
Regarding claim 17, Fuhr teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Fuhr teaches the vent is provided in the central area and the connection area of the bottom (“wherein the vent is provided in the central area and the connection area of the cap plate”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 10B).
Fuhr does not explicitly teach the vent includes a spiral or pinwheel shape extending from the central area.
However, Tsuruta teaches an energy storage device comprising a can comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first end comprises a first cap comprising a contact surface (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Tsuruta teaches the first cap has a spiral shape extending from the central area (“wherein the vent is in the central area and the connection area of the cap plate and includes a spiral or pinwheel shape extending from the central area”) (see e.g., Figure 10C) in order to produce resilience to mechanical shocks and vibrations that may be encountered by the cell in use (see e.g., paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr be in a spiral shape, as taught by Tsuruta, in order to produce resilience to mechanical shocks and vibrations that may be encountered by the cell in use (see e.g., paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 17, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, teaches the vent extends from a starting point in the central area to an end point in the connection area and has a spiral shape in which a radius of the spiral increases (see e.g., Tsuruta Figure 10C).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Tsuruta et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200144676 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20140193679 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 18, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, does not explicitly teach wherein the thickness of the cap plate in an area in which the vent is formed increases from the starting point to the end point in a tapered shape.
However, Kim teaches a secondary battery comprising a cap assembly sealing the lower case (see e.g., Abstract). Kim teaches the thickness s1 is the thinnest at the vent 110 and increased in a tapered shape to a second thickness at the edge portion of the cap (“wherein the thickness of the cap plate in an area in which the vent is formed increases from the starting point to the end point in a tapered shape”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045] and Figure 3) in order to control the way the vent portion mechanically opens under pressure and avoid an explosive fracture of the can (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, have a tapered increased thickness from the vent to the outer edge of the cap, as taught by Kim, in order to control the way the vent portion mechanically opens under pressure and avoid an explosive fracture of the can (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhr et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2012/0077062 A1) in view of Tsuruta et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200144676 A1), and further in view of Yoshida et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20220115756 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoshida.
Regarding claim 20, Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 17, as previously described.
Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, does not explicitly teach wherein the vent has the pinwheel shape in which a plurality of circular arcs with constant radii are arranged at equal intervals based on a center of the cap plate.
However, Yoshida teaches a battery including a battery case with a gasket (see e.g., Abstract). Yoshida teaches the gasket includes a disc-shaped bottom part 61 and bridge parts extending from the peripheral edge to the central projection 64 (see e.g., paragraphs [0053]-[0054]) to have a pinwheel shape in which a plurality of circular arcs with constant radii are arranged at equal intervals based on a center of the gasket (“wherein the vent has the pinwheel shape in which a plurality of circular arcs with constant radii are arranged at equal intervals based on a center of the cap plate”). Yoshida teaches the shape of the gasket in order to cause expansion along the pinwheel shape to reliably disconnect the current path upon an occurrence of abnormality and inhibit reconduction of the current path having once being disconnected (see e.g., paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the vent of Fuhr, as modified by Tsuruta, to have a pinwheel shape, as taught by Yoshida, in order to cause expansion along the pinwheel shape to reliably disconnect the current path upon an occurrence of abnormality and inhibit reconduction of the current path having once being disconnected (see e.g., paragraph [0055]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100136388 A1) teaches a cap assembly for a battery that includes a vent member that includes a protrusion that is physically connected to the plate (see e.g., Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights