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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/09/2025, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1 and 4-33 are now pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 recites “the area not overlapping the electrode lead”, and is interpreted in accordance with the specification as referring to “the sum of both regions of the electrode lead and the lead film that do not overlap”.
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.
Claim 1, 4-13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR-20090060495-A, refer to enclosed translation for citations) in view of Choi (KR20190023648A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Han teaches a secondary ([0003]- [0006]) battery (Fig. 7, battery pouch; see also Fig. 1, 10; [0022], hereinafter Figs. 1-3 are referred to for illustrative purposes only), comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 11; [0022]);
an electrode lead (Fig. 1, 12/13; [0022]) attached to the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 12/13 attached to 11; [0022]);
a battery case (Fig. 1, 20; [0022]) including an accommodation portion (Fig. 1, portion of 20 accommodating 11) to receive the electrode assembly 11 therein such that a portion (portion 13) of the electrode lead 12/13 extends outside the battery case 20 (see Fig. 1),
the battery case 20 including a sealing portion (Fig. 1, outer peripheral rim of 20) containing a sealant resin (Fig. 2, resin 21/23; [0023], [0010] wherein any resin can be a sealant resin and gas is only discharged during abnormal operation) to form a seal at least partially around the electrode assembly (see Fig. 1, wherein 21/23 surrounds electrode assembly and thus seals it; see also [0010] gas is only discharged during abnormal operation such that 20 is sealed),
a lead film (Fig. 1, terminal film wrapping overlapping portion of 12/13 as disclosed in [0022]) disposed around an outer surface of the electrode lead [0022], the lead film being interposed between the electrode lead and the sealing portion (Fig. 1, wherein insertion lines on 13 are disposed along the peripheral rim of 20, where it is wound with 12 with the terminal film; see [0022]),
a vent member (Fig. 7, venting part; [0028]; see also Fig. 3, 24 illustratively) containing a vent resin (Fig. 3, resin in 24; [0029]) having a lower melting point than the sealant resin (see [0029]),
the vent member (Fig. 7, L-shaped vent member 24) at least partially overlapping or contacting the lead film (see Fig. 7, wherein a portion of the vent member overlaps the portion in Fig. 1 where 12 and 13 overlap and the terminal film wrapping is located, per [0022]),
wherein the vent member extends from the accommodation portion (Fig. 7, wherein the innermost corner of the vent member overlaps with the accommodation portion below) to an outside of the battery case (see [0006], wherein the vent structure leads gas to the outside of the case) and extends to the accommodation portion ()
the vent member being spaced apart from the lead film (Fig. 8, left portion of L-shaped vent member spaced part from 13/12 overlap seen in Fig. 1) in the sealing portion (Fig. 1, outer peripheral rim of 20),
the vent member at least partially overlapping (Fig. 7, portion of vent member overlapping with 12/13, see Fig. 1 illustrative to position of 12/13) the lead film (Fig. 8, 13; see also illustratively Fig. 1, 12/13 overlapping portion; [0022]) in the accommodation portion (Fig. 8, bulging portion of 20 below, 13; see also Fig. 1 illustratively for portion of 20 accommodating 11),
However, it is unclear from the figures as to whether Han teaches wherein the vent member extends across the sealing portion wherein the vent member is at least partially disposed within the sealing portion (see Fig. 7, wherein the outermost edge of the vent member may or may not be disposed in the sealing portion).
Choi explicitly teaches wherein the vent member (Fig. 1, 110) extends across the sealing portion 103 wherein the vent member 110 is at least partially disposed within the sealing portion 103 (Fig. 1, 110 in 103 and [0040]) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the venting member of Han extends into the sealing portion, as Choi teaches that having a portion of the venting member in the sealing part helps fix the venting member (Choi, [0040]).
Regarding claim 4,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, the vent member including a first portion (Fig. 7, wherein the main portion of the vent member corresponds to a first portion), the first portion extending along an X-axis (Fig. 7, vent member extending perpendicular to electrode lead) orthogonal to the Y-axis (extension direction of electrode lead 12/13), wherein the electrode lead 12/13 extends away from the battery case 20 along a Y-axis (see Fig. 1 illustratively, direction along 12/13), but fails to teach the vent member including a second portion, the first portion between the lead film and the second portion, the second portion extending along the Y-axis. Choi teaches a vent member (Fig. 1, 110; [0058]) including a second portion (Choi Fig. 2, pressure sensing device 111/118), the first portion (Choi Figs. 1-2, part of 110 that is not 111 but in communication 111 per Choi [061]) between the lead film and the second portion, the second portion (111/118) extending along the Y-axis (see Fig. 2, vertical direction).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify the vent portion of Han to release into 110 of Choi, such that the vent may be pressure sensitive, as taught by Choi (Fig. 2, pressure sensing device 111/118; [0029]-[0030]), including a second portion extending along the Y-axis parallel with the electrode lead (see [0038] and 111/102a perpendicular to side surface), which incorporates a threshold operation pressure ([0006], [0050]) such that vent is not opened prematurely.
Regarding claim 5,
Han in view of Choi teaches a secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein Choi teaches, wherein the vent member defines an L shape (Choi Fig. 2, wherein 110 has an L-shape across extension directions of A and 111).
Regarding claim 6,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the vent member includes a tapering section at an intersection of the first and second portions (Choi Fig. 2, 110, wherein the intersection between the two portions is 111 and 118, which is a curved, tapering section), the tapering section extending into the accommodation portion (Choi [060-061], wherein pressure sensitive device 111 is located inside the accommodation portion such that it is affected by internal pressure).
Regarding claim 7,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the first portion (Fig. 7) at least partially overlaps or contacts the lead film (see rejection of claim 4 above) (Choi Fig. 2 shows 110 at least partially abutting/contacting film of case 115’ at lead 105a).
Regarding claim 8,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein an outer end of the first portion is spaced apart from an inner end of the sealing portion (Choi Fig. 1, 103 spaced apart from 110) adjacent a region where the electrode lead extends away from the battery case (Fig. 1, 102a), the first portion is located in the accommodation portion (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 9,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the second portion does not overlap or contact the lead film (see rejection of claim 6 above, wherein second portion 111 in Choi is located within the accommodation portion; [060-061]).
Regarding claim 10,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the second portion defines a variable width, the variable width narrowing along the Y-axis (Choi, Fig. 2, 111, see rejection of claim 6 above, wherein a least a portion of 111 is narrowing along the Y-axis).
Regarding claim 11,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the second portion defines at least an oval shape (Fig. 2, 111).
Regarding claim 12,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the second portion defines a variable thickness, at least a portion of the variable thickness is decreasing along the Y-axis (Choi, Fig. 2, 111, wherein a central intersection of an oval is both increasing and decreasing in thickness at different portions).
Regarding claim 13,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a region of the vent member overlapping or contacting the lead film (see Fig. 7, wherein portion overlapping with the lead accounts for less than half of the vent member), which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, is 1% to 30% of a region of the lead film not overlapping the electrode lead (majority of vent member not overlapping with 12/13 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27,
Han in view of Choi teaches secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery (Fig. 1, pouch case 30).
Claims 15, 16, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR-20090060495-A, refer to enclosed translation for citations) in view of Choi (KR20190023648A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations) and Chang (KR 20030066895 A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations).
Regarding claim 15,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent to wherein the vent member melts at 100°C to 120°C to vent gases from the accommodation portion to an exterior of the secondary battery. Chang teaches wherein the vent member (Fig. 1, 50) melts at 100°C to 120°C (Chang [032-033, 039]) to vent gases [043] from the accommodation portion (Fig. 1, 42a) to an exterior of the secondary battery (Fig. 1, exterior to pouch 40; [043]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the same materials as Chang to ensure the vent melts and releases gas at the appropriate time, as described by Chang [043].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the temperature ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 16,
Han in view of Choi and Chang teaches the secondary battery according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the vent member is vented (see rejection of claim 4 above in view of Choi, [0041]) at a pressure of 2-3 atm (Choi, [0041], which overlaps and thus renders obvious the claimed range of 1.5 atm or above).
Regarding claim 24,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin and a crystallization temperature of the vent resin is 10°C or less. Chang teaches a difference between a crystallization temperature ([039]-[040], “110-180”) of the sealant resin ([039]-[040], “polypropylene”, which sandwiches the polyethylene per [040]) and a crystallization temperature ([039]-[040], “90-120”) of the vent resin ([039]-[040], “polyethylene”) of approximately 10°C or less (wherein a difference between “110-180” and “90-120” at least overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, 10°C or less). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the same materials as Chang to ensure the vent melts and releases gas at the appropriate time, as described by Chang [043].
Regarding claim 25,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein Chang teaches in [039] that the vent resin has a melting point in a range which overlaps with the claimed range of 100°C to 130°C (see rejection of claim 15 above). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 14, 22-23, 26 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 7122276 B2, refer to enclosed text document for paragraph number citations) in view of Chang (KR 20030066895 A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Aittola (KR2011-0131259 A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations).
Regarding claim 14,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but silent to whether the vent resin contains a linear low-density polyethylene having a co-monomer with a carbon number of 6 or more.
Aittola, pertinent to the problem of improving the puncture resistance of polymers, teaches using a linear low-density polyethylene having a co-monomer with a carbon number of 6 or more (Aittola [005], “1-hexene”). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify the vent resin to have a co-monomer of a carbon number of 6 or more in order to produce a battery exterior with superior strength, toughness, and puncture resistance (Aittola [010]).
Regarding claim 22,
Han in view of Choi and Aittola teaches the secondary battery according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 15 weight% or less (1 to 16 wt% C4-C10 comonomer content, Aittola [032, 094]), based on 100 weight% of the linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) (Aittola [030,094]).
Aittola also teaches in [010, 028, 044] toward optimizing, tailoring, and fine tuning the LLDPE properties which are results affected by the addition of the comonomer. In including the C6 comonomer in the LLDPE resin material into Han, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include such in the 1-16 wt% taught by Aittola to achieve the desired tailored properties of the resultant LLDPE.
Regarding claim 23,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the vent resin has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of 4 or less. Aittola teaches wherein the vent resin has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of 4 or less (Aittola, see “linear low density polyethylene” in claim 14 above, (Aittola [049, 098] which is achieved as a resultant molecular weight property of the optimized low density polyethylene having the comonomer, see [096]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify the vent resin of Han to be the LLDPE within the PDI range specified as taught by Aittola in order to produce a battery exterior with superior strength, toughness, and puncture resistance (Aittola [010, 028, 044]).
Regarding claim 26,
Han in view of Choi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the vent resin has a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol to 400,000 g/mol. Aittola teaches a resin which has a weight-average molecular weight of 200,000 g/mol (Aittola [033]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify the vent resin of Han to be the LLDPE within the average molecular weight specified as taught by Aittola in order to produce a battery exterior with superior strength, toughness, and puncture resistance (Aittola [010, 028, 044]).
Regarding claim 30,
Han in view of Choi and Aittola teaches the secondary battery according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein a content of the comonomer with the carbon number of 6 or more is from 5 weight% to 15 weight% based on 100 weight% of the linear low-density polyethylene (1 to 16 wt% C4-C10 comonomer content, Aittola [032, 094]), based on 100 weight% of the linear low-density polyethylene (Aittola [030,094]). Aittola also teaches in [010, 028, 044] toward optimizing, tailoring, and fine tuning the LLDPE properties which are results affected by the addition of the comonomer. In including the C6 comonomer in the LLDPE resin material of modified Gu, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include such in the weight percent range taught by Aittola to achieve the desired tailored properties of the resultant LLDPE. Such overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 31,
Han in view of Choi and Aittola teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the vent resin has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of from 1 to 4 (see rejection of claim 23 above).
Claims 17-21, 28-29, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 7122276 B2, refer to enclosed text document for paragraph number citations) in view of Chang (KR 20030066895 A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yasuoka (KR 2019-0047104 A, refer to translation enclosed in 10/06/2023 Office action for citations).
Regarding claims 17-20, 28-29, 32, and 33
Han in view of Choi and Aittola teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a sealing strength.
Yasuoka, analogous in the art of battery pouch exteriors (Yasuoka [001], teaches a polypropylene-based composite film above has a maximum sealing strength less than 60 N/15 mm (equivalent to 6.11 kgf/15 mm) per [025], or more than 40 N/15mm, (equivalent to 4.07 kgf/15 mm), at room temperature. Yasuoka teaches a reduction in sealing strength when at 60°C by 10~15% compared to the original room temperature (RT) sealing strength (see table 2), such that the pouch case including the vent member has:
a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm at 100°C or above, 100°C or 120°C, or RT-60°C,
a maximum sealing strength of less than 3 kgf/15 mm at 120°C or more,
an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm at 1000C or above/100°C to 120°C/120C or more, AND of 4.5 kgf/15 mm or more at RT to 60C
an average sealing strength of less than 2 kgf/15 mm at 120°C or more;
Wherein it would be obvious to have the elements thereof based off the behavior of the material described by Yasuoka in [060-062] and Table 2. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use the material of Yasuoka, and it’s associated sealing strength properties with respect to temperature (see Yasuoka [025] and [060-062]), for the battery pouch of modified Han, as Yasuoka teaches the material beneficial for exterior sealing of a battery (see Yasuoka [025] and [060-062]).
Thereby, the limitations of claims 17-20, 28-29, 32, and 33 are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Yasuoka.
Regarding claim 21,
Han in view of Choi and Aittola teaches the secondary battery according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein Yasuoka teaches the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more (see citations above to Aittola regarding claim 14) is polymerized in the presence of a metallocene catalyst (known in the art per Aittola [011]). Yasuoka [021, 046, 054] also teaches the use of a metallocene catalyst in order to reach an optimum density of the copolymer, and that the low-density polyethylene used in the pouch battery film is a linear low-density polyethylene obtained by using a metallocene catalyst (Yasuoka [021]), and the inclusion of such in the pouch film material improves low-temperature impact resistance of the battery package (Yasuoka [035-040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use a metallocene catalyst for the LLDPE resin of modified Gu in order to improve low-temperature impact resistance of the battery package as taught by Yasuoka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowed based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection on claim 1 has been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20200287186-A1 to a venting member clearly extending into the accommodating portion, and US-20140011060-A1 for another disclosure of a vent member overlapping with sealing portion.
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 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights