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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180183027) in view of Kim (US20180114964) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on September 29th, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a pouch-shaped secondary battery ([0042]) comprising:
An electrode assembly having an electrode lead protruding therefrom (electrode assembly, [0015], terminal acts as electrode lead, [0041]),
A danger sensing device comprising a gas pocket (detecting part acts as danger sensing device-120, [0017], which includes a gas discharging part-112 acting as gas pocket, [0063], where gas discharging part is disposed on the terminal, Fig. 3, cathode terminal-115 and anode terminal-116 may be exposed to the outside, are disposed between the sealing part-113, [0044]) and a current sensing portion configured to move in response to an expansion or contraction of the gas pocket (control unit-130 acts as current sensing portion, [0064]).
Lee does not directly disclose wherein the gas pocket is contacting the electrode lead.
Kim discloses a main gas discharge tube that acts as a gas pocket. ([0034]). Kim further discloses wherein the main gas discharge tube is contacting the electrode lead (Fig. 2, electrode lead-130, gas discharge tube-150, [0034]). Kim teaches that this structure provides improved sealing ([008]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the gas pocket is contacting the electrode lead. This modification would yield the expected result of improved sealing.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the current sensing portion comprises:
An electrode lead contact portion in contact with the electrode lead (control unit is in connection with the terminal, [0062-0063]); and
A gas pocket contact portion abutting the gas pocket (control unit is in connection with the gas discharging part-112, [0062]), the gas pocket contact portion being configured to move the current sensing portion using an expansion or contraction force of the gas pocket ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses wherein the gas pocket expands (internal portion of battery is expanded, through gas discharging part, [0049]), wherein the expansion of the gas pocket expansion increased the distance between the electrode lead contact portion and the electrode lead.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the gas pocket contact portion contacts the gas pocket along a direction in which the gas pocket expands or contracts (the gas discharging part expands and contracts based on the internal expansion force, [0049], therefore since the gas contact portion is the point of contact with the current sensing portion and the gas pocket, and the gas pocket expands, it is the examiner’s position that Lee discloses wherein the gas pocket contact portion contacts the gas pocket along a direction in which the gas pocket expands or contracts).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the gas pocket contact portion has a larger sectional width than the electrode lead contact portion (the examiner notes that the area of contact for the gas pocket has a larger section width than the electrode lead section width, Fig. 4, therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the gas contact portion has a larger section width than the electrode lead contact portion).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses the limitations as set forth above Lee further discloses where at least the electrode lead contact portion is a conductor (the examiner notes that because the electrode terminals are configured to have a current flowing through them, that they are formed of conductive material, [0062], therefore the examiner’s position is that Lee discloses Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Lee does not directly disclose wherein at least an outer surface of the gas pocket contact portion is made of an insulation material.
Kim discloses a main gas discharge tube that can be made of a material having heat resistance and insulation ([0044]). Kim teaches that this structure provides an improved gas discharge structure ([0046]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure Lee with the teachings of Kim to have wherein at least an outer surface of the gas pocket contact portion is made of an insulation material.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee does not directly disclose wherein the insulation material has an adhesive force.
However, Lee discloses wherein the gas discharging part has a seal that is formed by a bonding force (the gas discharge part is opened by weakening a bonding force, [0015], which are also used in the sealing parts, [0023]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Lee to have wherein the insulation material on the gas pocket contact portion has an adhesive force.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee does not directly disclose wherein a portion at which the gas pocket and the receiving portion are connected to each other is sealed with lower sealing force than a sealed portion of the case.
However, Lee discloses wherein the has discharging part is thermo-compressed at a weaker level than those of other attachment portions of the sealing part ([0057]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary using the disclosure of Lee to have wherein a portion at which the gas pocket and the receiving portion are connected to each other is sealed with lower sealing force than a sealed portion of the case.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein when pressure in the receiving portion is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold the gas pocket expands (when gas is generated, which increases pressure, the gas discharging portion expands, [0049], [0010]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses wherein a second surface of the gas pocket in contact with the current sensing portion (detecting part is in contact with a surface of the gas discharging part-112, Fig. 3, [0060]).
Lee does not directly disclose wherein a first surface of the gas pocket contacts the electrode lead.
Kim discloses a gas discharging tube that contacts an electrode lead (Fig. 2, gas discharging tube-150, electrode tab-130, [0034]). Kim teaches that this structure allowed for improved charging/discharging battery performance ([005]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Lee with the teachings of Kim to have wherein a first surface of the gas pocket contacts the electrode lead.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the gas pocket is provided above a terraced portion formed by a sealed portion where the electrode lead protrudes or is disposed at least on the electrode lead (gas discharge part-112 is provided over a terraced portion, Fig. 1 shows terraced portion, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, can be interpreted to the be a shelf portion created by the sealing part-111 and sealing part contact surfaces -113, [0044], where the electrode tab-115 protrudes).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the battery is a pouch-shaped secondary battery ([006-007], [0010]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180183027) in view of Kim (US20180114964) further in view of Minokawa (US20120214034).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee does not directly disclose wherein a side of the current sensing portion is connected to a voltage measurement device.
Minokawa discloses a current sensing portion that is directly connected to a voltage measurement device (cell controller-310 includes a voltage sensor, [0041]). Minokawa further discloses a gas discharge pipe ([0103]). Minokawa teaches that this structure allows for improved control and management of the battery cell ([0041]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Lee to have wherein a side of the current sensing portion is connected to a voltage measurement device. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved control and management of the battery cell.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180183027) in view of Kim (US20180114964) further in view of Kedir (US20160133906).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Lee doesn’t directly disclose wherein the pouch secondary battery can be connected in parallel to a second pouch-shaped battery.
Kedir discloses a pouch secondary battery and further teaches that the pouch battery can be connected in parallel ([0010], [0024]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee with the teachings of Kedir to have wherein the wherein the pouch secondary battery can be connected in parallel to a second pouch-shaped battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 claims a pouch shaped secondary battery, that includes an electrode having an electrode lead protruding therefrom, and a danger sensing device comprising a gas pocket disposed on the electrode lead and a current sensing portion configured to movie in response to an expansion or an contraction of the gas pocket.
Claim 13 further claims where the gas pocket includes first and second gas pockets disposed at opposite sides of the current sensing portions.
The closest prior art is Lee. Lee discloses a pouch shaped secondary battery, that includes an electrode having an electrode lead protruding therefrom, and a danger sensing device comprising a gas pocket disposed on the electrode lead and a current sensing portion configured to movie in response to an expansion or a contraction of the gas pocket.
The prior art does not teach or suggest where the gas pocket includes first and second gas pockets disposed at opposite sides of the current sensing portions. The skilled artisan wouldn’t reasonably appear to be directed towards duplication the gas discharging part because the solution of having a gas portion that can expand to prevent the buildup of gas discharge from the battery is already accomplished via a single gas discharging part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Claims, filed May 12th, 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee in view of Kim under 35 USC 103.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights