DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/08/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 10 are amended. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 1-10 and 13-22 are now pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites “a sum of dimensions of the two extension portions along the second direction” wherein the exact number of dimensions of the two extension portions is not limited by the claim language. Accordingly, claim 10 is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a sum of dimensions” to mean a sum of any number of dimensions of the two extension portions along the second direction.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (JP2010165590A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) in view of Wakimoto (US-20220320676-A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
421
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1,
Nakazawa teaches a battery cell (illustratively, Fig. 3, 3; [0028]), comprising:
a first wall (Fig. 9, 5; [0028] [0052]) and a second wall (illustratively, Fig. 3, 4; [0028]) perpendicular (illustratively Fig. 3, wherein 4 is perpendicular to 5) to the first wall 5,
wherein a pressure relief score (Fig. 9, 12; [0041] [0052]) is integrally formed (see Fig. 3 illustrative to integrally formed with 5) on the first wall 5,
an isolation groove (Fig. 9, upper/lower segments of 14; [0047-0048]) is provided in a region (region demarcated by upper/lower 14) on the first wall between (see Fig. 9 and 3, wherein at least the upper/lower segments of 14 are between 12 and 4) the pressure relief score 12 and the second wall 4,
the pressure relief score 12 comprises a main body portion (Fig. 9, portion of 12 extending horizontally),
and the main body portion (Fig. 9, horizontal 12) is opposite to the isolation groove (Fig. 19, wherein at least the top and bottom portions of 14 are opposite 12) in a direction perpendicular to the second wall (see Fig. 9 and 3, wherein the vertical direction between 12 and 14 is perpendicular to 4),
wherein the main body portion is rectangular (see annotated Fig. 9, horizontal 12, wherein the “main body portion” is a line segment having width, and is thus substantially rectangular)
Nakazawa fails to teach wherein a ratio of a distance between the second wall and a side of the main body portion to a length of the main body portion in the direction perpendicular to the second wall is greater than or equal to 10.
Wakimoto teaches wherein a ratio of a distance (Fig. 8, wherein a distance= (L1-L7)/2; L1= 60mm [0064] [0067], L3/L1 is greater than 0.4 [0007], 0.8≤L3/L7≤2 [0007], thus L3~ 24mm, L7~20.727mm) between the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) and a side of the main body portion to a length (Fig. 8, dimension of 17d along X direction is about equal to (L3 -L7)/2) is greater than or equal to 10 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12) of the main body portion in the direction perpendicular (Fig. 8, direction along L1) to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) is greater than or equal to 10 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the dimensions of a distance and a dimension within the ranges as disclosed by Wakimoto, as Wakimoto teaches that selecting a distance L1 (and thus also an L7) in coordination with 17d helps design bending deformation and operational stability [0064], while the preferred range of a dimension inhibits gas discharge malfunction [0040]. Additionally, Wakimoto teaches teaches L1/T1 is greater than 10 [0007], such that Wakimoto suggests relating the size of the score to L1(a distance).
Alternatively, in the case that L3 and L7 refer to an ellipsoid Nakazawa suggests a relationship (and thus also an L7) in coordination with 17d helps design bending deformation and operational stability [0064], such that a longer L1 provides more stability relative the width of the groove and teaches L1/T1 is greater than 10 [0007], such that Wakimoto suggests relating the size of the score to L1(proportional to a distance) should be greater than a certain value for bending stability [0064]. While the pressure relief score of Wakimoto is circular compared to Nakazawa’s polygonal arrangement, this relationship between groove size and distance from the stabilizing frame can be optimized across any pressure relief score geometry. Accordingly, the length, and thus a ratio of the distance to the length, can be considered a result effective variable in order to optimize the breaking pressure of the pressure relief score. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have optimized the relative geometries of the pressure relief score, particularly the ratio of the distance to the length, as Nakazawa suggests this is a result effective variable for aligning the geometry of the pressure relief score with the desired breaking pressure for that battery. Additionally, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, since different batteries have different desired threshold breaking pressures, aligning the ratio of the distance to the length with the desired breaking pressure is considered routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 2,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the ratio of a distance (Fig. 8, wherein a distance= (L1-L7)/2; L1= 60mm [0064] [0067], L3/L1 is greater than 0.4 [0007], 0.8≤L3/L7≤2 [0007], thus L3~ 24mm, L7~20.727mm) between the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) and a side of the main body portion to a length (Fig. 8, dimension of 17d along X direction is about equal to (L3 -L7)/2) is greater than or equal to 10 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12) of the main body portion in the direction perpendicular (Fig. 8, direction along L1) to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) is greater than or equal to 12 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the isolation groove (Fig. 9, upper/lower segments of 14) is one of multiple isolation grooves (Fig. 9, upper segment of 14 and lower segment of 14) arranged on two sides (Fig. 9, top and bottom side of 5) of the pressure relief score 12 in the direction perpendicular to the second wall (annotated Fig. 9, direction along “a distance”).
Regarding claim 4,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein an opening of the isolation groove (Fig. 9, opening of 14, see also Fig. 3 illustrative to the opening of 14) faces a same direction (Fig. 9, z direction penetrating the plane of 5) as an opening of the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, opening of 14).
Regarding claim 5,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second wall 4 is a wall with a largest area (see illustratively Fig. 1, wherein second wall 4 has the largest area) of the battery cell (illustratively, Fig. 3, cell 3; [0026]).
Regarding claim 6,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a projection of the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, projected pattern of score 12 onto 5) on the first wall 5 comprises the main body portion (horizontal 12) extending along a first direction (Fig. 9, direction along horizontal 12) and two extension portions (Fig. 9, vertical portions of 14; see [0036] wherein the s portions are continuous such that vertical portions of 14 may be extension portions; the examiner notes that each segment of 14 represents a discrete channel separated by a) respectively located at two ends (Fig. 9, left and right ends of horizontal 12) of the main body portion 12 and extending along a second direction (Fig. 9, direction of vertical portions of 14), wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction (see Fig. 9, wherein the horizontal 12 intersects with the vertical 14).
Regarding claim 7,
PNG
media_image1.png
555
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the first direction (annotated Fig. 9, direction across horizontal 12) is parallel to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 3, 4; see also Fig. 9, wherein the second wall at the top edge of 5 is parallel with horizontal 12) and the second direction (Fig. 9, direction along 14) is perpendicular to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 3, 4 wherein the plane of 4 is perpendicular to 5, and thus perpendicular to 14, see also Fig. 9, wherein the angle between the vertical portions of 14 and the edge of 5 is 90 degrees and thus perpendicular).
Regarding claim 8,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the extension portions (annotated Fig. 9, extension portions; vertical segments of 14) are located on two sides (Fig. 9, left and right sizes of horizontal 12) of the main body portion (horizontal 12) in the second direction (direction along vertical segments of 14).
Regarding claim 9,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches battery cell according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein a projection of the isolation groove (Fig. 9, projected pattern of upper/lower grooves of 14 on 5) on a side where the extension portions (Fig. 9, vertical portions of 14) are located on the first wall 5 is located between the two extension portions (wherein upper/lower 14 is located between the vertical portions of 14) in the first direction (annotated Fig. 9, wherein the upper/lower 14 extend along the first direction along horizontal 12) and does not extend beyond ends of the two extension portions in the second direction (see annotated Fig. 9, wherein upper/lower 14 does not extend beyond the extension portions).
PNG
media_image3.png
174
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13,
PNG
media_image4.png
174
367
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a thickness (Fig. 3 and 6, illustrative to thickness t1 of wall 5 at 14 s; [0052]; [0044]; wherein t1= .144 mm) of a region on the first wall 5 where the isolation groove is located (upper/lower segments of 14) is greater ([0044] wherein t1 is greater than t2) than a thickness (annotated Fig. 3, illustrative to thickness of wall 5 at 12 d; [0052]; wherein the thickness is equal to t2= 0.03mm, 0.04 mm, or 0.05mm; see Fig. 6 and [0044]) of a region on the first wall 5 where the pressure relief score 12 is located.
Regarding claim 14,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the thickness of the region on the first wall where the isolation groove is located is greater than or equal to the thickness of the region on the first wall where the pressure relief score is located (see rejection of claim 13 above) and less than or equal to five times ([0044]-[0049] wherein t1 is less than 5 *t2), the thickness t2 of the region on the first wall where the pressure relief score 12 is located.
Regarding claim 15,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the thickness of the region on the first wall where the isolation groove is located (see rejection of claim 13 above, t1, thickness of upper/lower 14 s) is greater than or equal to two times (see [0044]; t1> 2* t2) the thickness of the region on the first wall 5 where the pressure relief score (t2, thickness of 5 at 12d) is located and less than or equal to three times ([0044], t1< 3*t2 for when t2 is 0.05, which is selected for achieving a specific breaking pressure [0046]) the thickness t2 of the region on the first wall 5 where the pressure relief score 12 is located.
Regarding claim 16,
PNG
media_image5.png
183
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein in the direction perpendicular to the second wall (see annotated Fig. 9, direction along “a distance”), a distance (annotated Fig. 9, “a distance”) between a portion of the isolation groove (Fig. 9, upper/lower segments of 14) opposite to the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, opposite at least the horizontal portion of 12) and the second wall 4 is greater than or equal to (annotated Fig. 9, wherein “a distance” is greater than “ a dimension”) a dimension of the isolation groove (annotated Fig. 9, “a dimension”).
Regarding claim 17,
PNG
media_image5.png
183
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), but fails to teach wherein in the direction perpendicular to the second wall, the distance between the portion of the isolation groove opposite to the pressure relief score and the second wall is greater than or equal to three times the dimension of the isolation groove.
Wakimoto teaches wherein, in a direction perpendicular (Fig. 8, direction along L1) to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]), a distance (Fig. 8, wherein a distance= L1-L3/2= 18mm; L1= 60mm; L3=24mm; L7=20.727, see rejection of claim 1 above; [0064], [0007]) between the portion of the isolation groove (Fig, 8, 17c; [0040]) opposite (Fig. 8, portion of 17c opposite 17d) to the pressure relief score (Fig. 8, 17d) and the second wall (Fig. 1 and 8, second wall 12 located at 14b) is greater (wherein 18mm is greater than 4.91 mm) than or equal to three times the dimension of the isolation groove (Fig. 8, dimension of 17d; approximately (L3-L7)/2 ~ 1.635mm; thus 3* 1.635 =4.91). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the dimensions of a distance and a dimension within the ranges as disclosed by Wakimoto, as Wakimoto teaches that selecting a distance L1 in coordination with 17d helps design bending deformation and operational stability [0064].
Regarding claim 18,
PNG
media_image6.png
398
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein in the direction perpendicular to the second wall (annotated Fig. 9, direction along “a distance”) a distance (annotated Fig. 9, “a distance”) between the portion of the isolation groove (Fig. 9, upper/lower segments of 14) opposite (wherein upper/lower segments of 14 are at least opposite to the horizontal portion of 12) to the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, 12) and the pressure relief score is greater (annotated Fig. 9, wherein a distance is significantly greater than a dimension) than or equal to the dimension of the isolation groove (annotated Fig. 9, “a dimension”).
Regarding claim 19,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches a battery (illustratively Fig. 1, 1; [0026), comprising the battery cell (illustratively Fig. 3, 3) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches an electric apparatus ([0049], “electrical device”) characterized by comprising [0049] the battery 1 according to claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above).
Claims 10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (JP2010165590A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) in view of Wakimoto (US-20220320676-A1) and Kim (US-20060105228-A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches a battery cell according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a dimension of the main body portion (annotated Fig. 9, “a dimension”) along the first direction is equal to a sum of dimensions (Fig. 9, a sum of several dimensions d found along the extending direction of the vertical segments of 14 equal to “a dimension”; see claim interpretation above) of the two extension portions (vertical portions of 14 which include dimensions of d) along the second direction (annotated Fig. 9, direction along “a distance”). However, Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto fails to teach the second direction is same as the direction perpendicular to the second wall. Kim teaches a second direction (Fig. 5B, direction along extension portions 731) is same as the direction perpendicular (normal to 731) to the second wall (Fig. 5B, wall on right side of 700, normal to and thus perpendicular to 731). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the extension portions of Nakazawa to be at right angles with the main body portion and having a second direction perpendicular to the second wall, as Kim teaches the “I” shaped pressure relief score to allow for a thicker membrane, making accidental bursting from outside pressure less likely ([0016] [0019] [0051-0053]).
Regarding claim 21,
Nakazawa in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) , wherein a projection of the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, projected pattern of score 12 onto 5) on the first wall 5 comprises the main body portion (horizontal 12) extending along a first direction (Fig. 9, direction along horizontal 12) and two extension portions (Fig. 9, vertical portions of 14; see [0036] wherein the s portions are continuous such that vertical portions of 14 may be extension portions; the examiner notes that each segment of 14 represents a discrete channel separated by a) respectively located at two ends (Fig. 9, left and right ends of horizontal 12) of the main body portion 12 and extending along a second direction (Fig. 9, direction of vertical portions of 14), the first direction intersects with the second direction (see Fig. 9, wherein the horizontal 12 intersects with the vertical 14) but fails to teach and a length of the main body portion along the first direction is equal to a sum of two lengths of the two extension portions along the second direction.
Kim teaches varying the shape of the pressure relief score to improve safety [0016], [0018-0019], and [0040] including selecting the length of the extension portions 731 to be shorter than the main body portion ([0048], “I-shape”). Accordingly, Kim suggests a relationship where changing the length of the extension portions 731 relative to the length of the main body portion 735 is a result-effective variable for altering the breaking pressure conditions [0052]. Accordingly, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (wherein a uniform breaking pressure seen from equal lengths as described in the instant specification [00119] is seen as an optimization of reliability, which is an expected result in view of Kim [0016] and [0050-0053], “reliability”), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, a length of the main body portion along the first direction to be equal to a sum of two lengths of the two extension portions along the second direction. the length of the extension portions. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 22,
Nakazawa teaches a battery cell (illustratively, Fig. 3, 3; [0028]), comprising:
a first wall (Fig. 9, 5; [0028] [0052]) and a second wall (illustratively, Fig. 3, 4; [0028]) perpendicular (illustratively Fig. 3, wherein 4 is perpendicular to 5) to the first wall 5,
wherein a pressure relief score (Fig. 9, 12; [0041] [0052]) is integrally formed (see Fig. 3 illustrative to integrally formed with 5) on the first wall 5,
an isolation groove (Fig. 9, upper/lower segments of 14; [0047-0048]) is provided in a region (region demarcated by upper/lower 14) on the first wall between (see Fig. 9 and 3, wherein at least the upper/lower segments of 14 are between 12 and 4) the pressure relief score 12 and the second wall 4,
the pressure relief score 12 comprises a main body portion (Fig. 9, portion of 12 extending horizontally),
and the main body portion (Fig. 9, horizontal 12) is opposite to the isolation groove (Fig. 19, wherein at least the top and bottom portions of 14 are opposite 12) in a direction perpendicular to the second wall (see Fig. 9 and 3, wherein the vertical direction between 12 and 14 is perpendicular to 4),
a projection of the pressure relief score (Fig. 9, projected pattern of score 12 onto 5) on the first wall 5 comprises the main body portion (horizontal 12) extending along a first direction (Fig. 9, direction along horizontal 12) and two extension portions (Fig. 9, vertical portions of 14; see [0036] wherein the s portions are continuous such that vertical portions of 14 may be extension portions; the examiner notes that each segment of 14 represents a discrete channel separated by a) respectively located at two ends (Fig. 9, left and right ends of horizontal 12) of the main body portion 12 and extending along a second direction (Fig. 9, direction of vertical portions of 14), the first direction intersects with the second direction (see Fig. 9, wherein the horizontal 12 intersects with the vertical 14) but fails to teach and a length of the main body portion along the first direction is equal to a sum of two lengths of the two extension portions along the second direction.
Nakazawa fails to teach wherein a ratio of a distance between the second wall and a side of the main body portion to a length of the main body portion in the direction perpendicular to the second wall is greater than or equal to 10, the second direction is same as the direction perpendicular to the second wall, and a length of the main body portion along the first direction is equal to a sum of two lengths of the two extension portions along the second direction
Wakimoto teaches wherein a ratio of a distance (Fig. 8, wherein a distance= (L1-L7)/2; L1= 60mm [0064] [0067], L3/L1 is greater than 0.4 [0007], 0.8≤L3/L7≤2 [0007], thus L3~ 24mm, L7~20.727mm) between the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) and a side of the main body portion to a length (Fig. 8, dimension of 17d along X direction is about equal to (L3 -L7)/2) is greater than or equal to 10 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12) of the main body portion in the direction perpendicular (Fig. 8, direction along L1) to the second wall (illustratively Fig. 1, 12; wherein 12 is along 14b in Fig. 8; [0038]) is greater than or equal to 10 (a ratio= (L1-L7)/ (L3 -L7) which is greater than or equal to 12). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the dimensions of a distance and a dimension within the ranges as disclosed by Wakimoto, as Wakimoto teaches that selecting a distance L1 (and thus also an L7) in coordination with 17d helps design bending deformation and operational stability [0064], while the preferred range of a dimension inhibits gas discharge malfunction [0040]. Additionally Wakimoto teaches teaches L1/T1 is greater than 10 [0007], such that Wakimoto suggests relating the size of the score to L1(a distance).
Alternatively, Nakazawa suggests a relationship that selecting a distance L1 (and thus also an L7) in coordination with 17d helps design bending deformation and operational stability [0064], such that a longer L1 provides more stability relative the width of the groove and teaches L1/T1 is greater than 10 [0007], such that Wakimoto suggests relating the size of the score to L1(proportional to a distance) should be greater than a certain value for bending stability [0064]. While the pressure relief score of Wakimoto is circular compared to Nakazawa’s polygonal arrangement, this relationship between groove size and distance from the stabilizing frame can be optimized across any pressure relief score geometry. Accordingly, the length, and thus a ratio of the distance to the length, can be considered a result effective variable in order to optimize the breaking pressure of the pressure relief score. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have optimized the relative geometries of the pressure relief score, particularly the ratio of the distance to the length, as Nakazawa suggests this is a result effective variable for aligning the geometry of the pressure relief score with the desired breaking pressure for that battery. Additionally, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, since different batteries have different desired threshold breaking pressures, aligning the ratio of the distance to the length with the desired breaking pressure is considered routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05.
Kim teaches a second direction (Fig. 5B, direction along extension portions 731) is same as the direction perpendicular (normal to 731) to the second wall (Fig. 5B, wall on right side of 700, normal to and thus perpendicular to 731). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the extension portions of Nakazawa to be at right angles with the main body portion and having a second direction perpendicular to the second wall, as Kim teaches the ”I” shaped pressure relief score to allow for a thicker membrane, making accidental bursting from outside pressure less likely ([0016] [0019] [0051-0053]).
Additionally, Kim teaches varying the shape of the pressure relief score to improve safety [0016], [0018-0019], and [0040] including selecting the length of the extension portions 731 to be shorter than the main body portion ([0048], “I-shape”). Accordingly, Kim suggests a relationship where changing the length of the extension portions 731 relative to the length of the main body portion 735 is a result-effective variable for altering the breaking pressure conditions [0052]. Accordingly, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (wherein a uniform breaking pressure seen from equal lengths as described in the instant specification [00119] is seen as an optimization of reliability, which is an expected result in view of Kim [0016] and [0050-0053], “reliability”), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, a length of the main body portion along the first direction to be equal to a sum of two lengths of the two extension portions along the second direction. the length of the extension portions. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (See MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 have been fully considered and, due to the amendment, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim (US-20060105228-A1).
Applicant argues that (L3-L7)/2 is not a dimension of 17d because L3/L7 correspond to the diameters of an ellipse. However, this is not persuasive, as the resulting value of (L3-L7)/2 is substantially close to a length/dimension of 17d.
PNG
media_image7.png
720
876
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Given an ellipse structure inside an annular 17d, the edges of the ellipse along L7 (or L3 in the case L3>L7) are substantially close to the edges of 17d. Therefore, (L3-L7)/2 is a useful approximation of “a length” that conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art the general dimension of the groove for comparison to L1. Furthermore, an alternative optimization rationale is provided for claim 1 in the case that the difference between the edge of the ellipse and the edge of 17d is significant, since the disclosed relationship of L3/L7 affects the size of a length, such that Wakimoto provides that changing the dimension of “a length” is a result-effective variable for improving the operational stability of the gas discharge valve [0083].
Applicant argues that the dimension of Wakimotos annular main body portion does not apply to the rectangular main body portion of the primary reference. However, this is not persuasive, as Wakimoto explicitly teaches that the L3/L7 relationship also applies to rectangular structures [0083].
Applicant argues that the new claims are not taught by the prior art. However, this argument is moot in view of the newly added prior art Kim.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection on claim 1 has been sustained.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights