DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 8 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/08/2025 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 101245282 B1) in view of Uhm et al. (US 20150037663 A1) hereinafter “Uhm”. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a pouch type rechargeable-battery, comprising: an electrode assembly including a first electrode plate, a separator, and a second electrode plate ([0005]); and a pouch film in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, wherein the pouch film includes an accommodation portion in which the electrode assembly is accommodated ([0004]-[0005]; [0009]; Fig. 1), and a terrace portion extending from the accommodation portion to an external side of the accommodation portion, and wherein the terrace portion includes a plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions and the plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions are spaced apart from each other in a direction away from the accommodation portion (Fig. 6-7 annotated below; [0042] non-sealing regions 450 are considered equivalent to auxiliary accommodation portions; [0039]; [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
601
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park does not teach wherein a plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions include auxiliary electrolyte.
However, Uhm teaches a pouch type battery case having a double sealing structure (abstract; Fig. 1) wherein the empty space between a first and second sealing portion may be filled with extra electrolyte ([0017]-[0018]; [0059]). Uhm teaches that including extra electrolyte between a first and second sealing portion allows the battery lifespan to be increased ([0019]). Uhm teaches that extra electrolyte is introduced into the battery cell when the second sealing portion is damaged by gas generated due to oxidation of the electrolyte ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pouch-type battery taught by Park by including extra electrolyte in the empty spaces between the multiple sealing portions as taught by Uhm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the pouch-type battery taught by Park by including extra electrolyte in the empty spaces (auxiliary accommodation portions) between the multiple sealing portions as taught by Uhm to extend the life of the battery ([0019]; [0059]).
Park in view of Uhm does not teach where each of the auxiliary accommodation portions is sequentially opened starting from those disposed closer to the accommodation portion as an internal pressure of the pouch film increases.
However, both Park and Uhm disclose that increased pressure due to gas generation will break a sealing portion (Park [0049]-[0052]; Uhm [0019[, [0059]). Park discloses that during continuous charging/discharging processes electrolytes decompose at high temperatures generating gas which causes a swelling phenomenon in pouch type batteries ([0014]; [0049]; [0030]). Uhm teaches that a sealing portion disclosed closer to the electrode accommodation portion has a lower sealing strength than an outer sealing portion ([0060]; Fig. 1).
The structure taught by Park in view of Uhm is the same as the claimed structure, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the action of the sealing and accommodation portions in the pouch type battery taught by Park in view of Uhm to open in a sequential manner in the scenario of increasing pressure.
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Modified Park further teaches wherein lithium (Li) is included in the electrolyte (Uhm [0038]; [0042]; [0046]).
Modified Park does not explicitly teach wherein lithium (Li) is included in the auxiliary electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation portion among the plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions.
However, Uhm teaches that the electrolyte included in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion) is extra electrolyte ([0019]; [0059]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Park by including a lithium containing electrolyte in the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation portions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the battery taught by modified Park by including a lithium containing electrolyte in the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation portions because lithium containing electrolytes are taught by Uhm and Uhm teaches the incorporation of extra electrolyte in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim1.
Modified Park does not explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation portion of the plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions is the same as electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion.
However, Uhm teaches that the electrolyte included in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion) is extra electrolyte ([0019]; [0059]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Park by using the same as electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation as taught by Uhm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the battery taught by modified Park by using the same as electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation as taught by Uhm because Uhm teaches the incorporation of extra electrolyte in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion). Absent a teaching otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably continue using the same electrolyte for the extra electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Park further teaches wherein the terrace portion includes a sealing portion disposed on an external side of the auxiliary accommodation portion (Fig. 6-7 annotated below; [0039]).
PNG
media_image3.png
601
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 6. Park further teaches wherein the sealing portion includes an adhesive or an auxiliary sealing member for bonding the sealing portion ([0010]-[0012] adhesive layer).
Regarding claim 8, the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Park further teaches wherein the plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions includes a first plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions on a first side of the terrace portion and a second plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions on a second side of the terrace portion ([0039]; Fig. 6-7 shown above; three or more sealing lines formed on the outer circumferential surface; [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 8. Park further teaches wherein the first and second sides of the accommodation portion are on opposite sides of the accommodation portion ([0039]; Fig. 6-7 shown above; three or more sealing lines formed on the outer circumferential surface; [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Park further teaches wherein the plurality of auxiliary accommodation portions (non-sealing regions) are disposed in spaced relation along the at least one side of the terrace portion ([0039]; Fig. 6-7 shown above; three or more sealing lines formed on the outer circumferential surface; [0042]; [0038]).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101245282 B1) in view of Uhm (US 20150037663 A1), as applied above, in further view of Wu et al. (“Effect of Sodium Chloride as Electrolyte Additive on the Performance of Mesocarbon Microbeads Electrode” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 8 (2013) 670- 677) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim2.
Modified Park does not teach wherein auxiliary electrolyte including lithium (Li) includes sodium chloride (NaCl).
However, Wu teaches a lithium-ion battery with an electrolyte including LiPF6 (pg. 670, Introduction) where NaCl is added to the electrolyte (pg. 670, Abstract; pg. 671 Introduction). Wu teaches that the addition of NaCl to an electrolyte results in superior electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu to improve electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
Regarding claim 5, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Park further teaches three or more sealing lines with non-sealing regions between ([0039]; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized more than two electrolyte storage portions (for example 3), such that a second auxiliary accommodation portion disposed on a side of the first auxiliary accommodation portion opposite the accommodation portion and a third auxiliary accommodation portion disposed on a side of the second auxiliary accommodation portion opposite the first auxiliary accommodation portion, in the battery taught by modified Park because it is within the scope of the disclosure ([0039]; [0042]; Fig. 6-7 shown above).
Park is silent as to the electrolyte contained in each auxiliary accommodation portion (non-sealing region).
However, Uhm teaches that the electrolyte included in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion) is extra electrolyte ([0019]; [0059]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Park by using the same electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in the auxiliary accommodation portions as taught by Uhm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the battery taught by modified Park by using the same as electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation as taught by Uhm because Uhm teaches the incorporation of extra electrolyte in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion). Absent a teaching otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably continue using the same electrolyte for the extra electrolyte.
Uhm further teaches wherein the electrolyte may contain non-aqueous organic solvents such as propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate derivatives, tetrahydrofuran derivatives, ether, methyl propionate, and ethyl propionate, along with lithium salt such as LiPF6, LiCl, and LiAsF6 ([0043]; [0046]).
Modified Park does not teach wherein the electrolyte including lithium (Li) includes sodium chloride (NaCl).
However, Wu teaches a lithium-ion battery with an electrolyte including LiPF6 (pg. 670, Introduction) where NaCl is added to the electrolyte (pg. 670, Abstract; pg. 671 Introduction). Wu teaches that the addition of NaCl to an electrolyte results in superior electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu. In the case where NaCl is added to all electrolyte components the electrolyte limitation of claim 5 is met.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu to improve electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
Park in view of Uhm does not teach where as an internal pressure of the pouch film increases, the first auxiliary accommodation portion, the second auxiliary accommodation portion, and the third auxiliary accommodation portion are sequentially opened in that order.
However, both Park and Uhm disclose that increased pressure due to gas generation will break a sealing portion (Park [0049]-[0052]; Uhm [0019[, [0059]). Park discloses that during continuous charging/discharging processes electrolytes decompose at high temperatures generating gas which causes a swelling phenomenon in pouch type batteries ([0014]; [0049]; [0030]). Uhm teaches that a sealing portion disclosed closer to the electrode accommodation portion has a lower sealing strength than an outer sealing portion ([0060]; Fig. 1).
The structure taught by Park in view of Uhm is the same as the claimed structure, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the action of the sealing and accommodation portions in the pouch type battery taught by modified Park in view of Wu to open in a sequential manner in the scenario of increasing pressure.
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the pouch type rechargeable-battery of claim 1. Park further teaches three or more sealing lines with non-sealing regions between ([0039]; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized more than two electrolyte storage portions (for example 3), such that the first auxiliary accommodation portion is disposed closer to the accommodation portion than the third auxiliary accommodation portion, and the second auxiliary accommodation portion is disposed between the first auxiliary accommodation portion and the third auxiliary accommodation portion, in the battery taught by modified Park because it is within the scope of the disclosure ([0039]; [0042] non-sealing portions are considered equivalent to auxiliary accommodation portions; Fig. 6-7 shown above).
Park is silent as to the electrolyte contained in each auxiliary accommodation portion (non-sealing region).
However, Uhm teaches that the electrolyte included in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion) is extra electrolyte ([0019]; [0059]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by Park by using the same as electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in the auxiliary accommodation portions as taught by Uhm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the battery taught by Park by using the same electrolyte filled in the accommodation portion for the extra electrolyte accommodated in at least one auxiliary accommodation as taught by Uhm because Uhm teaches the incorporation of extra electrolyte in the space between the first and second sealing portions (auxiliary accommodation portion). Absent a teaching otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably continue using the same electrolyte for the extra electrolyte.
Uhm further teaches wherein the electrolyte may contain non-aqueous organic solvents such as propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate derivatives, tetrahydrofuran derivatives, ether, methyl propionate, and ethyl propionate, along with lithium salt such as LiPF6, LiCl, and LiAsF6 ([0043]; [0046]).
Modified Park does not teach wherein the electrolyte including lithium (Li) includes sodium chloride (NaCl).
However, Wu teaches a lithium-ion battery with an electrolyte including LiPF6 (pg. 670, Introduction) where NaCl is added to the electrolyte (pg. 670, Abstract; pg. 671 Introduction). Wu teaches that the addition of NaCl to an electrolyte results in superior electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu. In the case where NaCl is added to all electrolyte components the electrolyte limitation of claim 11 is met.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the electrolyte taught by modified Park by adding NaCl as taught by Wu to improve electrochemical activity of an electrode (pg. 672, Results and Discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728