DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims refer to a “closed convex ring” that also has an “exhaust hole.” In other words, the convex ring is not wholly closed, except insofar as the ring extends around in a closed loop. The “closed convex ring” is therefore interpreted to require a ring with an overhang portion from its periphery that covers at least some of the area that it encloses, rather than being strictly “closed” under a narrower definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-11 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 require “a reinforcing rib close to the closed convex ring.” The term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
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 1-4, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (CN 213546421 to He, the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, He teaches:
an anti-explosion valve patch with a patch body 110 for a battery (p. 1, Figs. 1-2)
having an exhaust hole 121 and a closed convex ring 120 disposed on the patch body and protruding therefrom (Figs. 1-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
634
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, He teaches:
integrally formed patch and ring (Figs., p. 2)
Regarding Claim 3, He teaches:
the ring being a closed curve contour line (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 4, He teaches:
a cross section that is either curved or bent with a straight line (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 12, He teaches:
an end cover assembly or cover for a battery comprising a cover/end plate with a valve, as was conventional in the art (p. 3)
an anti-explosion valve patch with a patch body 110 covering the valve (pp. 1 and 3, Figs. 1-2)
having an exhaust hole 121 and a closed convex ring 120 disposed on the patch body and protruding therefrom (Figs. 1-2)
Regarding Claim 13, He teaches:
integrally formed patch and ring from the same material (Figs., p. 2)
Regarding Claim 14, He teaches:
the ring being a closed curve contour line (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 15, He teaches:
a cross section that is either curved or bent with a straight line (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 19, He teaches:
an end cover assembly or cover for a battery comprising a cover/end plate with a valve, as was conventional in the art (p. 3)
an anti-explosion valve patch with a patch body 110 covering the valve (pp. 1 and 3, Figs. 1-2)
having an exhaust hole 121 and a closed convex ring 120 disposed on the patch body and protruding therefrom (Figs. 1-2)
Regarding Claim 20, He teaches:
a battery for use with an apparatus (p. 3, etc.)
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Debart (US 2022/0216577 to Debart et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Debart teaches:
an end cover assembly of a batter comprising an end plate on which an anti-explosion valve 8 is disposed (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0050)
a valve patch 5 having an exhaust hole above the valve 8 (Figs. 1-2)
the patch comprising a patch body 13 (etc.) with a closed convex ring 9/11 disposed on the patch body protruding from a surface of the patch body away from the end plate of the battery, the exhaust hole enclosed by the convex ring, and the patch covering the anti-explosion valve (i.e. has structure over it, and holds it in place) with the closed convex ring of the anti-explosion valve patch protruding away from the surface of the patch body towards a side away from the anti-explosion valve (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0067-0079)
PNG
media_image3.png
518
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
449
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Debart teaches:
reinforcing ribs close to the convex ring for reinforcing the ring, and protruding from a surface of the patch body (Fig. 1, above)
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Debart teaches:
rib(s) outside the region enclosed by the closed convex ring (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 9, Debart teaches:
a curved reinforcing rib segment (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 10, Debart teaches:
same-side and arguably opposite-side reinforcing rib segments (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Debart teaches:
a connecting rib insofar as it is connected to the convex ring, and a spaced rib segment insofar as it is spaced, while connected to, the convex ring (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.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 213546421 to He, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Kanamori (US 2016/0028057 to Kanamori et al.) and/or Orr (US 2008/0190950 to Orr).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17, He does not teach:
a reinforcing rib disposed on the patch body close to the closed convex ring
the rib and patch body being integrally processed
Kanamori, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an explosion proof valve body teaches providing integral ribs internal to the valve patch body and enclosed by a raised convex ring (Figs. 2-3, ¶ 0020, 0045-0049).
PNG
media_image5.png
230
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
360
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It was also well known in the cover arts to provide ribs within an enclosed periphery. Orr, for example, teaching a reinforced lid structure, teaches raised, integral ribs internal to the convex periphery (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
946
514
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide reinforcing ribs on the raised part of the convex valve patch in He, with the motivation to strengthen it, as this was conventional in the cover arts, and was further known in valve plates provided on battery covers.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Kanamori and Orr further render obvious:
internal reinforcing rib segments within the closed convex ring (Figs. above)
wherein the internal rib is not provided at the exhaust hole (see e.g. Fig. 3 of Kanamori)
It would have been obvious to provide the rib along the upper surface of He, away from the exhaust hole in order not to block it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights