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 .
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 212571194 U, published 19 Feb 2021, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Li et al. (CN 211578857 U, published 25 Sep 2020, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) and Zhang et al. (CN 216720196 U, published 10 June 2022, paragraphs cited from provided English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. (CN212571194U) discloses a battery cell (secondary battery) comprising: a casing (housing 1) configured to accommodate an electrode assembly, and comprising: a shell (center portion of the casing 1) comprising a first wall portion (bottom surface of the shell, see Fig. 1) and a second wall portion (top surface of the shell, see Fig. 1) opposite the first wall portion (see Fig. 1); and two end caps (first cover plate 2 and second cover plate 3) separately closing openings (first and second openings 1a, 1b) on two opposite ends of the shell (center portion of casing 1) along a first direction (extending direction L, see Fig. 1); wherein the first cover plate (2) includes a first pressure relief mechanism (first explosion-proof valve 4) and the second cover plate (3) includes a second pressure relief mechanism (second explosion-proof valve 5, [0035-0036]; Fig. 1). Thus, the first pressure relief mechanism (4) and second pressure relief mechanism (5) are disposed on the casing (1) at an interval (the interval being the separation between first cover plate 2 and second cover plate 3). Li (‘194) further discloses that the first wall portion (bottom surface of the shell, see Fig. 1) supports the electrode assembly (the center portion of the casing surrounds the electrode assembly, including the bottom surface) along a gravitational direction (height direction H, see Fig. 1), and the first direction (extending direction L) intersects with the gravitational direction (height direction H). Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose that the first pressure relief mechanism opens earlier than the second pressure relief mechanism.
Li et al. (CN211578857U) discloses a battery explosion-proof structure, a battery cover plate, and a battery ([0019-0020]), and specifically discloses: the battery explosion-proof structure comprises a main body (1), a first groove (11, equivalent to the second pressure relief mechanism), a second groove (12, equivalent to the first pressure relief mechanism); a first groove (11) and a second groove (12) provided on the body (1), the first groove (11) is spaced apart from the second groove (12), and when the internal air pressure of the cell exceeds a first threshold, the body (1) ruptures from the second groove (12, i.e. The first pressure relief mechanism opens earlier than the second pressure relief mechanism), and when the internal air pressure exceeds a second threshold, the body (1) ruptures from the first groove (11, [0040]; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pressure relief mechanisms of Li (‘857) for the valves of Li (‘194), such that the first pressure relief mechanism is started earlier than the second relief mechanism, in order to guarantee stable opening of the pressure relief means as taught by Li (‘857). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Modified Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose that the electrode assembly comprises both a main body portion and a tab, nor does modified Li (‘194) disclose that the first pressure relief mechanism or the second pressure relief mechanism is disposed on the first wall portion.
Zhang et al. discloses an electrode assembly (23) which comprises a main body portion and tabs ([0066]), which connect the electrode terminals to form a current loop ([0066]). Zhang further discloses a shell casing for an electrode assembly (22), comprising a wall part (22a) including a pressure relief mechanism (24, [0078]; see Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add tabs, as taught by Zhang to the electrode assembly (battery cells) of modified Li (‘194) to connect the electrode terminals to form a current loop, as taught by Zhang. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the pressure relief mechanisms of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on the first wall portion, as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Li (‘194) further discloses a channel gap (gas ejection paths, [0041-0042]) configured to communicate spaces inside the casing (casing 1) at two ends of the main body portion (explosion proof valves 4 and 5 are arranged on opposite ends of the shell) along the first direction (extending direction L, see Fig. 1), to quickly release the internal pressure of the battery and achieve depressurization ([0041-0042]). Li (‘194) does not clearly discloses that the channel gap is formed between the second wall portion (top surface of the shell) and the main body portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a channel gap between the second wall portion (top surface of the shell) and the main body portion. The first wall portion (bottom surface of the shell) supports the main body portion along a gravitational direction, therefore, there would not be space between the first wall portion and the electrode assembly to communicate spaces at two end ends of the main body portion along the first direction (extending direction L). Any gap remaining between the shell and the main body portion in the height direction (H) would be between the electrode assembly and the second wall portion (top surface of the shell). Furthermore, forming a channel gap between the second wall portion and the main body portion would allow ejected gases to flow in the first direction, thereby quickly releasing internal pressure as taught by Li (‘194). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Li (‘857) further discloses that the thickness of the main body T, the first groove (11) of depth T2, and the second groove (12) of depth T3 satisfy the relationship: 0.25*T < T2 < 0.3*T; 0.4*T ≤ T3 ≤ 0.45*T, both to ensure easier rupture of the body (1) from the first groove (11) or the second groove (12) when the air pressure inside the cell is too high, and to a certain extent to ensure the strength of the body (1), thereby better improving the safety of use of the explosion proof construction of the cell ([0049-0050]; Fig. 3) . Li (‘857) teaches that the deeper the groove depth, the easier it is to break under pressure. Thus, Li (‘857) identifies groove depth, and the corresponding starting pressure, as results effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a starting pressure Pi of the first pressure relief mechanism and a starting pressure P2 of the second pressure relief mechanism of modified Li (‘194) to satisfy P2-Pi > 0.02 MPa, to ensure strength of the casing and improve the safety of the explosion proof construction as taught by Li (‘857). 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. Furthermore, the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 2. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a starting pressure Pi of the first pressure relief mechanism and a starting pressure P2 of the second pressure relief mechanism of modified Li (‘194) to satisfy 0.05 Mpa <P2-Pi 0.5 Mpa, to ensure strength of the casing and improve the safety of the explosion proof construction as taught by Li (‘857). 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. Furthermore, the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first pressure relief mechanism of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on the first wall portion, as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Modified Li (‘194) does not disclose that both the first pressure relief mechanism and the second pressure relief mechanism (4 and 5) are disposed on the first wall portion (1). However, Zhang et al. similarly discloses a shell casing for an electrode assembly (22), comprising a wall part (22a) which may include a plurality of pressure relief mechanisms (24, [0088-0089]; see Figs. 6-7). Zhang further teaches that by providing multiple pressure relief mechanisms (24) at intervals in the wall portion (22a), the pressure or temperature generated inside the battery cell can be released at multiple locations in the wall portion (22a), thereby improving the pressure relief efficiency of the pressure relief mechanism (24) in releasing pressure or temperature ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that both the pressure relief mechanisms of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on the first wall portion, as disclosed by Zhang, to improve the pressure relief efficiency as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. As discussed above regarding claim 1, Li teaches that the first explosion-proof valve (4) is placed on the first end cap (cover plate 2) and the second explosion-proof valve (5) is placed on the second end cap (cover plate 3, [0035-0036]; Fig. 1); Li (‘194) further discloses that the casing (1) comprises a first wall portion (bottom surface of the center portion of casing 1, see Fig. 1). Modified Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose that at least one of the first pressure relief mechanism and the second pressure relief mechanism (4 and 5) is disposed on the first wall portion (1).
Zhang et al. similarly discloses a shell casing for an electrode assembly (22), comprising a wall part (22a) including a pressure relief mechanism (24, [0078]; see Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the pressure relief mechanisms of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on the first wall portion, as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose an electrode assembly wherein: along the first direction, at least one end of the main body portion is provided with a tab.
Zhang et al. discloses an electrode assembly (23) which comprises a main body portion and a tab, and along the first direction, at least one end of the main body portion is provided with the tab ([0066]). Zhang further teaches that the tabs connect the electrode terminals to form a current loop ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add tabs, as taught by Zhang to the electrode assembly (battery cells) of modified Li (‘194) to connect the electrode terminals to form a current loop, as taught by Zhang. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Li (‘194) further shows that the casing has a first half-region and a second half-region, along the first direction (extending direction L), a portion from a middle cross-section of the casing (in the H-D plane, parallel to the end caps 2 and 3) to one end of the casing is the first half-region, and a portion from the middle cross-section of the casing to the other end of the casing is the second half-region, and the middle cross-section is perpendicular to the first direction (extending direction L), as can be seen in Figure 1. The middle cross section can be selected as a portion of the shell (1), parallel to each of the end caps (2 and 3) and perpendicular to the length direction. Given that the first pressure relief mechanism (4) and second pressure relief mechanism (5) are disposed opposite to one another (each pressure relief mechanism is disposed on an end cap, see Fig. 1), and the first half-region and second half-region can be assigned arbitrarily, the first pressure relief mechanism (4, disposed on cover plate 2) is disposed in the first half-region, and the second pressure relief mechanism (5, disposed on cover plate 3) is disposed in the second half-region. Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 12. Li (‘194) further discloses that the space enclosed by the casing (1) has a length L comprised between 180 mm and 560 mm ([0036]). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 12. As discussed regarding claim 12, Li (‘194) teaches that the casing has a first half-region and a second half-region, the first cover plate (2) is disposed in the first half-region, the second cover plate (3) is disposed in the second half-region (the two end caps are separately located). Modified Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose that the first pressure relief mechanism (first explosion-proof valve 4) is disposed on the end cap (first cover plate 2) located in the first half-region, and the second pressure relief mechanism (second explosion-proof valve 5) is disposed on a portion of the shell located in the second half-region; or the first pressure relief mechanism (first explosion-proof valve 4) is disposed on a portion of the shell located in the first half-region, and the second pressure relief mechanism (second explosion-proof valve 5) is disposed on the end cap (second cover plate 3) located in the second half-region.
Zhang further discloses a shell casing for an electrode assembly (22), comprising a wall part (22a) including a pressure relief mechanism (24, [0078]; see Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the pressure relief mechanisms of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on a portion of the shell, as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 14. Li (‘194) further discloses that the first cover plate (2) comprises a first electrode terminal (positive post 21) and the second cover plate (3) comprises a second electrode terminal (negative post 31, [0038, 0058]; Figs. 1, 4-5). Thus, the first electrode terminal and the second electrode terminal have opposite polarities and are separately disposed on the two end caps. While it is not explicitly disclosed, both terminals must be electrically connected to the electrode assembly in order for the secondary battery to operate. Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Modified Li (‘194) does not disclose that both the first pressure relief mechanism and the second pressure relief mechanism (4 and 5) are disposed on a first wall portion (surface of the center portion of casing 1). However, Zhang et al. similarly discloses a shell casing for an electrode assembly (22), comprising a wall part (22a) which may include a plurality of pressure relief mechanisms (24, [0088-0089]; see Figs. 6-7). Zhang further teaches that by providing multiple pressure relief mechanisms (24) at intervals in the wall portion (22a), the pressure or temperature generated inside the battery cell can be released at multiple locations in the wall portion (22a), thereby improving the pressure relief efficiency of the pressure relief mechanism (24) in releasing pressure or temperature ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that both the pressure relief mechanisms of modified Li (‘194) could alternatively be disposed on the first wall portion, as disclosed by Zhang, to improve the pressure relief efficiency as taught by Zhang. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Zhang further discloses that the each of the pressure relief mechanisms are provided with a scoring groove and (pressure relief channels 24b); and the first scoring groove and the second scoring groove are disposed at an interval along the first direction ([0089]). Zhang teaches that ratio of the area of the grooves (S1) to the area of the wall portion (S2), and thus the lengths of the casing and scoring grooves (as they depend on area), impact the discharge rate of the gas and the mechanical strength of the wall portion ([0068]). If the distance between the adjacent pressure relief channels is greater than the diameter (which corresponds to the maximum space in the case of a circular groove) of the pressure relief channels, the ratio of the sum of the cross-sectional areas S1 of all pressure relief channels (24b) on the wall (22a) to the area S2 of the corresponding wall (22a) may be less than 0.1, which is not conducive to the rapid release of pressure or temperature ([0101]). However, if the distance between the adjacent pressure relief channels (24b) is less than D/2 mm, some pressure relief channels will fail to release the pressure, and will reduce the mechanical strength of the shell ([0102]). Therefore, the respective areas, and thus the length of the casing and maximum spans of the scoring grooves, are identified as results effective.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify L, Li, and L2 to provide the ratio claimed, in order to balance the rate of pressure relief and mechanical characteristics of the casing. 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. Further, the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Li (‘194) further discloses a secondary battery ([0035]). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 212571194 U, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Li et al. (CN 211578857 U, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) and Zhang et al. (CN 216720196 U, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 217009464 U, published 19 July 2022, paragraphs cited from provided English translation).
Regarding claim 21, modified Li et al. (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 1. Modified Li (‘194) does not clearly teach that a predetermined pressure relief area of the first pressure relief mechanism is S1, a predetermined pressure relief area of the second pressure relief mechanism is S2, and S1 > S2.
Feng et al. discloses an explosion-proof valve including a diaphragm (1), a first pressure relief mechanism (first groove/notch 2) and a second pressure relief mechanism (second groove/notch 3), wherein the first pressure relief mechanism (2) ruptures at a first preset pressure, and the second pressure relief mechanism (3) ruptures at a second preset pressure, so as to realize the opening of the corresponding pressure relief port for pressure relief according to different preset pressures ([0035]). Feng further teaches an embodiment in which the area surrounded by the first pressure relief mechanism (2) is larger than the area surrounded by the second pressure relief mechanism (3, [0042]; Figs. 1,4), and thus S1 > S2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface areas of the pressure relief mechanisms taught by modified Li (‘194), such that S1 > S2, as taught by Feng. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 21.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 212571194 U, published 19 Feb 2021, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Li et al. (CN 211578857 U, published 25 Sep 2020, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) and Feng et al. (CN 217009464 U, published 19 July 2022, paragraphs cited from provided English translation).
Regarding claim 22, Li et al. (‘194) discloses a battery cell (secondary battery) comprising a casing (housing 1) configured to accommodate an electrode assembly, and two end caps (first cover plate 2 and second cover plate 3) on two opposite ends of the casing (1); wherein the first cover plate (2) includes a first pressure relief mechanism (first explosion-proof valve 4) and the second cover plate (3) includes a second pressure relief mechanism (second explosion-proof valve 5, [0035-0036]; Fig. 1). Thus, the first pressure relief mechanism (4) and second pressure relief mechanism (5) are disposed on the casing (1) at an interval (the interval being the separation between first cover plate 2 and second cover plate 3). Li (‘194) does not clearly disclose that the first pressure relief mechanism opens earlier than the second pressure relief mechanism.
Li et al. (CN211578857U) discloses a battery explosion-proof structure, a battery cover plate, and a battery ([0019-0020]), and specifically discloses: the battery explosion-proof structure comprises a main body (1), a first groove (11, equivalent to the second pressure relief mechanism), a second groove (12, equivalent to the first pressure relief mechanism); a first groove (11) and a second groove (12) provided on the body (1), the first groove (11) is spaced apart from the second groove (12), and when the internal air pressure of the cell exceeds a first threshold, the body (1) ruptures from the second groove (12, i.e. The first pressure relief mechanism opens earlier than the second pressure relief mechanism), and when the internal air pressure exceeds a second threshold, the body (1) ruptures from the first groove (11, [0040]; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pressure relief mechanisms of Li (‘857) for the valves of Li (‘194), such that the first pressure relief mechanism is started earlier than the second relief mechanism, in order to guarantee stable opening of the pressure relief means as taught by Li (‘857). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Modified Li (‘194) does not clearly teach that a predetermined pressure relief area of the first pressure relief mechanism is S1, a predetermined pressure relief area of the second pressure relief mechanism is S2, and S1 > S2.
Feng et al. discloses an explosion-proof valve including a diaphragm (1), a first pressure relief mechanism (first groove/notch 2) and a second pressure relief mechanism (second groove/notch 3), wherein the first pressure relief mechanism (2) ruptures at a first preset pressure, and the second pressure relief mechanism (3) ruptures at a second preset pressure, so as to realize the opening of the corresponding pressure relief port for pressure relief according to different preset pressures ([0035]). Feng further teaches an embodiment in which the area surrounded by the first pressure relief mechanism (2) is larger than the area surrounded by the second pressure relief mechanism (3, [0042]; Figs. 1,4), and thus S1 > S2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface areas of the pressure relief mechanisms taught by modified Li (‘194), such that S1 > S2, as taught by Feng. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Li (‘194) meets the limitations of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim 1, as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Li (‘194) discloses a channel gap (gas ejection paths, [0041-0042]) configured to communicate spaces inside the casing (casing 1) at two ends of the main body portion (explosion proof valves 4 and 5 are arranged on opposite ends of the shell) along the first direction (extending direction L, see Fig. 1), to quickly release the internal pressure of the battery and achieve depressurization ([0041-0042]). Li (‘194) does not clearly discloses that the channel gap is formed between the second wall portion (top surface of the shell) and the main body portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a channel gap between the second wall portion (top surface of the shell) and the main body portion. The first wall portion (bottom surface of the shell) supports the main body portion along a gravitational direction, therefore, there would not be space between the first wall portion and the electrode assembly to communicate spaces at two end ends of the main body portion along the first direction (extending direction L). Any gap remaining between the shell and the main body portion in the height direction (H) would be between the electrode assembly and the second wall portion (top surface of the shell). Furthermore, forming a channel gap between the second wall portion and the main body portion would allow ejected gases to flow in the first direction, thereby quickly releasing internal pressure as taught by Li (‘194)..
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding new claims 21 and 22, Feng et al. has been cited to teach an embodiment in which the area of the first pressure relief mechanism is larger than the area of the second pressure relief mechanism. Furthermore, the examiner reminds applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights