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 May 29, 2024 and April 1, 2025 have been 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu, et al. (CN 208460852 U).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a secondary battery including a housing which includes top cover (10), and an electrode assembly inside the housing (¶ [0060], Ln. 1-3; Fig. 1). An explosion-proof hole is provided in the top cover, which is sealed by an explosion-proof membrane (20; pressure relief mechanism). The explosion-proof membrane includes an edge portion (200; connecting portion) and central portion (202; body portion). The edge portion is connected to the outer periphery of the explosion-proof hole, with welding provided as an example of connection (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-4; Fig. 2). Hu further teaches a gas tearing notch (2020) provided on an inner side of the edge portion, which can be torn by gas under a preset pressure, forming a weak portion which encloses the central portion (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-3). Hu teaches that the central portion is provided with a reinforcing groove (2026; first groove), which is formed as two arc-shapes in Figure 3 and thus is configured to release a stress when the edge portion is welded to the top cover (¶ [0082], Ln. 1-8).
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a base which corresponds to the bottom surface of the reinforcing groove (2026; first groove). Hu further teaches that the wall thickness at the notch (2020), which forms the weak portion is small and, in contrast, the wall thickness where the reinforcing groove is provided is thicker (¶ [0085], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0086], Ln. 1-3). Thus, Hu teaches that the base has a thickness greater than that of the weak portion.
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above, including a gas tearing notch (2020; second groove) provided near the edge portion, wherein the bottom surface of the notch forms the weak portion (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the notch (2020; second groove) can be set on the upper surface of the central portion or the lower surface of the central portion (¶ [0067], Ln. 1-3). Hu further teaches that the wall thickness at the notch (2020), which forms the weak portion is small and, in contrast, the wall thickness where the reinforcing groove is provided is thicker (¶ [0085], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0086], Ln. 1-3). Thus, Hu teaches that the notch has a depth greater than the depth of the reinforcing groove.
Regarding claim 5, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the reinforcing groove (2026; first groove) and the notch (2020; second groove) are arranged on the same side of the explosion-proof membrane as shown in Figure 5. Additionally, shown in Figure 3, the reinforcing groove has an end extending to an edge of the central portion and is in communication with the notch.
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and, as shown in Figure 3, the reinforcing groove (2026; first groove) has an end extending to an edge of the central portion and connect to the notch (2020; second groove), which forms the weak portion.
Regarding claim 7, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the reinforcing groove (2026: first groove) is recessed toward the side closer to the electrode assembly (¶ [0088], Ln. 1-7). Shown in Figure 5, the reinforcing groove is thus provided on a surface of the central portion (202; body portion) facing away from the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the thickness of the edge portion (200; connecting portion) is greater than the thickness of the central portion (202; body portion) (¶ [0064], Ln. 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above, including an explosion-proof membrane which includes a first surface located away from the electrode assembly and a second surface located on a side facing the electrode assembly. As shown in Figure 5, the explosion-proof membrane includes a portion which is recessed in between the two edge portions depicted at the top and bottom of the figure. Hu teaches that protrusions protrude toward the side away from the electrode assembly and the reinforcing groove (2026: first groove) is recessed toward the side closer to the electrode assembly (¶ [0088], Ln. 1-7). Thus, the recess is recessed from the surface away from the electrode assembly (first surface) and recessed in a direction toward the electrode assembly. Additionally, the portion of the explosion-proof membrane between the bottom surface of the recess and the surface located on the side facing the electrode assembly (second surface) includes the central portion and the weak portion, and the edge portion surrounds the outer side of the recess and is located between the first and second surface.
Regarding claims 10-11, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the reinforcing groove (2026: first groove) includes two arc-shapes, as shown in Figure 3. In this case, the reinforcing groove includes a first groove section, shown as the top arc shape opening upwards in Figure 3, and a second groove section, shown as the bottom arc shape opening downwards in Figure 3. The first and second groove sections are in communication with each other, such that the groove wall surface in the middle of the first groove section is in transition with a groove wall surface in the middle of the second groove section.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the reinforcing groove (2026: first groove) includes two arc-shapes, as shown in Figure 3. In this case, the reinforcing groove includes two first groove sections, shown as the top arc shape opening upwards and the bottom arc shape opening downwards in Figure 3, and a second groove section, which is the junction between the two arcs. Thus, the groove wall surface of the first groove sections is in transition with the groove wall surface of the second groove surface by means of an arc surface. Additionally, the two first groove sections are in communication with the ends of the second groove section.
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the battery includes a housing with an opening (shell) and a top cover (end cap) which seals the housing (¶ [0060], Ln. 1-5). Hu teaches that the explosion-proof membrane is provided in the top cover (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-5).
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, et al. (CN 208460852 U), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches a battery cell meeting the limitations of claim 1 above. Hu does not expressly teach a battery comprising a plurality of the battery cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the battery cell of Hu as part of a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that battery cells, and particularly battery cells configured to include the top cover shown in Figure 1, are commonly connected in a battery pack to supply energy to electric devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the cells in a plurality in order to provide more energy to an electric device and would find it obvious to connect a plurality of battery cells in a battery pack.
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches a battery cell meeting the limitations of claim 1 above. Hu additionally teaches that the battery cell relates to the field of energy storage device technology (¶ [0002], Ln. 1-2). Hu does not expressly teach a power consuming device including the battery cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the battery cells of Hu to provide energy to an electric device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of batteries is to provide power to electric devices and would find it obvious to use the battery cells of Hu in a power consuming device. As Hu teaches that the battery cell relates to the field of energy storage device technology, one would find it obvious to use the cell in an electric device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He, et al. (CN 207743297 U) teaches an explosion-proof double C-shaped structure described in Example 1. The explosion-proof double C-shaped structure includes a burst-proof sheet (1) which includes a groove (13; body portion) in its middle. There is an outer ring score (11; second groove, weak portion) arranged along the edge of the groove and double “C” shaped notches (14; first groove) in the closed structure. Additionally, the outer edge forms an installation part (12; connecting portion).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights