DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/700366, “BATTERY”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 3/30/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/30/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 9/18/26.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation, “an annular edge section of the safety valve, which is continuous to the exterior body includes a first edge section formed in an arc shape and a second edge section formed with a radius larger than a radius of the first edge section or formed in a linear shape, the first edge section includes a groove, and a central portion of the first edge section has a minimum curvature” [emphasis added] is unclear.
More specifically, the claim requires that the second edge section has a radius larger than a radius of the first edge or is linear, but subsequently requires that a central portion of the first edges section has a “minimum curvature”. It is unclear how any portion of the first edge could have a minimum curvature because the second edge section has a larger radius [implying a lower curvature] or is linear [implying a curvature of 0, which is also lower].
The unclarity is associated with the failure of the claim to give context to “a minimum curvature”, which is a relative term without a reference to what the curvature is minimum with respect to. As worded, “a minimum curvature” could be considered with respect to any component of the battery, some portions of which may be flat or linear. For example, “a minimum curvature” could be interpreted to refer to a minimum amongst the curvature of the first edge section [the central portion having lower curvature than other portions of the first edge section], or alternatively, “a minimum curvature” could be interpreted to refer to a minimum amongst all the parts of the valve, or even more broadly all the parts of the battery. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marubayashi (US 2005/0112455).
Regarding claim 1, Marubayashi teaches a battery (Figs. 1, 2) comprising: a charge/discharge body (item 7); an exterior body (items 8,6) in which the charge/discharge body is housed; and a safety valve (item 2) provided at the exterior body and configured to open from inside the exterior body to outside when pressure inside the exterior body becomes equal to or larger than a predetermined value (paragraph [0016]), wherein thickness of the safety valve is smaller than thickness of the exterior body (Fig. 2; paragraph [0037]), an annular edge section of the safety valve, which is continuous to the exterior body includes a first edge section formed in an arc shape and a second edge section formed with a radius larger than a radius of the first edge section or formed in a linear shape (Figs 4, 5; e.g. Fig. 5b), and the first edge section includes a groove (item 4; Figs. 2b, 4, 5).
Regarding the 9/18/26 amendment to claim 1, Marubayashi further teaches wherein a central portion of the first edge section has a minimum curvature (see Figs. 5a-5e. For example, Fig. 5b shows an oblong oval, racetrack type shape, where the top of the oblong oval may be considered a second edge section formed in a linear shape [0 curvature], and the sides and bottom of the oblong oval may together be considered a first edge, which includes a central portion [bottom only] having a linear shape with a curvature of 0, matching the minimum curvature. The same analysis may be applied to the oval shape of Fig. 5d or the egg shape of Fig. 5e, where the top of the valve is mapped to the second edge, and the bottom of the valve is mapped to a central portion of the first edge, possessing a minimum curvature matching the minimum curvature of the second edge.)
Regarding claim 2, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the safety valve is curved in a convex shape in a direction approaching the charge/discharge body (Fig. 2; paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the safety valve is curved in a convex shape in a direction departing from the charge/discharge body (Figs. 8,9).
Regarding claim 4, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 2. Marubayashi further teaches wherein in the safety valve, a curvature of a first curved section curved in a convex shape from the first edge section is smaller than a curvature of a second curved section curved in a convex shape from the second edge section (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0061] teach that the safety valve may have an egg shape or an elliptical shape, each of which have first sections having smaller radius of curvature than second sections).
Regarding claim 5, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 2. Marubayashi further teaches wherein a distal end section of the safety valve is positioned closer to the second edge section than a central section of the safety valve (the distal ends section of the safety valve would be closer to the second edge having larger radius of curvature for at least the egg-shaped embodiments of Fig. 5 and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the safety valve extends in a flat plate shape along an outer shape of the exterior body (see Fig 4b, where the safety valve includes a flat portion at its periphery, adjacent to the wall of the body 6, the flat portion connected to the convex portion by the groove 4).
Regarding claim 7, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the edge section is formed in a rotationally asymmetric annular shape (see at least Figs. 5b, 5d and 5e).
Regarding claim 8, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein at least the edge section of the safety valve is positioned between an outer surface and an inner surface facing each other and constituting a thickness part of the exterior body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 8. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the entire safety valve is positioned between the outer surface and the inner surface (see Fig. 2)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marubayashi (US 2005/0112455) in view of Marubayashi’880 (US 2003/0131880).
Regarding claim 6, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 1. Marubayashi further teaches wherein the safety valve is a flat structure, extending in a flat plate shape along an outer shape of the exterior body.
In the battery art, Marubayashi’880 teaches that a safety valve may be configured to have a flat structure, extending in a flat plate shape along an outer shape of the exterior body (Fig. 11). Marubayashi’880 further teaches that when the groove has a flat structure, safety may be slightly improved (paragraph [0128]).
The simple substitution of the Marubayashi domed safety valve, for a safety vale having a flat structure, extending in a flat plate shape along an outer shape of the exterior body, as taught by Marubayashi’880, merely requires the simple substitution of one known valve structure for another to yield predictable results; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, such a modification may provide benefits such as improved safety; therefore, additional motivation exists to make such a modification in that improves safety may be achieved.
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Marubayashi remains as applied to claim 3. As described above, Marubayashi teaches a battery comprising a safety valve, wherein the safety valve is curved in a convex shape in a direction departing from the charge/discharge body (see Fig. 8,9, which represent a Comparative Example as described in paragraphs [0032-0033]), but does not appear to teach wherein in the safety valve, a curvature of a first curved section curved in a convex shape from the first edge section is smaller than a curvature of a second curved section curved in a convex shape from the second edge section, or wherein a distal end section of the safety valve is positioned closer to the second edge section than a central section of the safety valve.
However, Marubayashi further teaches that a safety valve may have an egg-type shape for the benefit of stress concentration and easy breakability (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 8,9 by forming the valve to have an egg-shape as such a structure is associated with improved breakability as taught by Marubayashi at paragraph [0061]).
The egg-shape implies a curvature of a first curved section curved in a convex shape from the first edge section is smaller than a curvature of a second curved section curved in a convex shape from the second edge section, and wherein a distal end section of the safety valve is positioned closer to the second edge section than a central section of the safety valve, as required by claims 10 and 11, respectively.
It is noted that Figs. 8 and 9 are disclosed as a Comparative Example (paragraphs [0033]) with the finding that the inventive embodiments (e.g. Fig. 2, 5) which have a convex up valve shape desirably require less pressure for bursting than the convex down shape of the Fig. 8,9 Comparative Example (paragraph [0052]).
However, it has been held that, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain…A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments… Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments… A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” (MPEP 2123)
Here, the Comparative Example of Marubayahsi, wherein the valve is configured in a concave down manner, represents a conventional prior art embodiment (see also Marubayashi’880 Fig. 4 where the concave down valve is an inventive embodiment of that reference), thus a skilled artisan would have understood that this concave down structure provides a workable valve, albeit one that requires a higher pressure for bursting than then improved valves of Marubayashi. The modification of such a conventional concave down valve to have an egg-like shape for a benefit of improving its breakability is found to be an obvious embodiment suggested by the cited art (combination of known elements to yield predictable results is obvious -MPEP 2141), notwithstanding that even better performance is possibly achievable by utilizing a concave up type valve in view of Marubayashi’s suggestion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/18/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
Marubayashi fails to teach “a central portion of the first edge section has a minimum curvature” because Marubayashi provides no teaching, suggestion, or disclosure of the curvature of a central portion of the first edge section. In response, Marubayahsi schematically illustrates exemplary valve designs in Fig. 5. Some of these possess a central portion of a first edge section having a minimum curvature as described in the art rejections in detail.
Marubayahi fails to contemplate on the effect of curvature of the central portion of the first edge having a minimum value. In response, Marubayahi is not required to provide the claimed structure for the same reason as does applicant (see MPEP 2112 which clarifies that advantages, such as new properties, identified by applicant are not required to be recognized by the prior art).
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Morishita (JP 2001-256944) battery comprising concave down explosion valve;
Yoshida (JP 2011-175937) battery comprising concave up explosion valve;
Urano (US 2014/0141293) battery with flat and concave down safety valves;
Osafune (US 2023/0352794)) battery with irregular bends in a safety valve;
Moriyama (US 2024/0186647) battery with irregular bends in a safety valve.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights