DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending in the application, with claims 17-20 currently withdrawn. Previous grounds of rejection for claims 1-15 have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda (JP 2005/038707, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda discloses in Figs 1-3, a battery cell ([0001], [0002], [0016]), comprising: a battery case ([0001], [0016]) having an accommodation portion ([0001], [0016]) in which an electrode assembly (ref 40) is positioned (Fig 2a), and a sealing portion (refs 50-53) formed by sealing an outer periphery (Fig 2a) of the battery case ([0001], [0016]); an electrode lead (ref 40b) electrically connected to an electrode tab ([0016], Fig 2a) included in the electrode assembly (ref 40), the electrode lead (ref 40b) protruding out of (Fig 2a) the battery case ([0001], [0016]) through the sealing portion (refs 50-53); a lead film (ref 35) located on at least one of a first portion and a second portion (Fig 2a) of the electrode lead (ref 40b), the lead film (ref 35) adjacent to (Figs 2a, 2b) the sealing portion (at ref 53); and a getter unit (ref 21) positioned between (Fig 2b) the electrode lead (ref 40b) and the sealing portion (at ref 53), wherein the getter unit (ref 21) includes a first end (outer end, Fig 2a) positioned outside of (Fig 2a) the battery case ([0001], [0016]) and a second end (inside end, at (-) negative pole, Fig 2a) positioned inside (Fig 2a) of the battery case ([0001], [0016]), and the first end (outer end, Fig 2a) is covered by ([0010]-[0011]) the lead film (ref 35) and not covered by (Fig 2a) the sealing portion (at ref 53).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second end (inside end ref 40b, Fig 2a) is not covered by (Fig 2a) the lead film (ref 35) and does not overlap with (Fig 2a) the sealing portion (at ref 53).
Regarding claim 3, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the getter unit (ref 21) is formed directly on (Fig 2b) the electrode lead (ref 40b), and the lead film (ref 35) is disposed on the electrode lead (ref 40b) with the getter unit (ref 21) interposed there between (Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 4, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lead film (ref 35) located on (Fig 2b) the getter unit (ref 21) has a thickness of 100 microns ([0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lead film includes a first lead film (ref 20) contacting the electrode lead (ref 40b) and a second lead film (ref 35) disposed on (Fig 2b) the first lead film (ref 20) with the getter unit (ref 21) interposed between (Fig 2b) the first lead film (ref 20) and the second lead film (ref 35)
Regarding claim 6, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second lead film (ref 35) has a thickness of 100 microns ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the getter unit (ref 21) includes at least one moisture-absorbing material comprising silica ([0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the getter unit (ref 21) contains a binder material including polyolefin-based polymers ([0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lead film (ref 35) contains a polyolefin-based material ([0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lead film (ref 35) is configured to surround all (Figs 2a, 2b) of an upper portion (Figs 2a, 2b) of the electrode lead (ref 40b), a lower portion (Figs 2a, 2b) of the electrode lead (ref 40b), and a side surface (Figs 2a, 2b) connecting the upper portion and the lower portion of the electrode lead (ref 40b).
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the getter unit (ref 21) has a thickness of 50 microns ([0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an area (depicted in Fig 2a annotated above) of the first end of the getter unit (ref 21) is greater than (depicted in Fig 2a annotated above) an area of the second end of the getter unit (ref 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (JP 2005/038707, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a width between the first end and an outermost end of the lead film is 2 mm.
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific width of the lead structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the width of the lead structure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the size of electrode leads in general are dependent on the size/power requirements of the end use (see Kuroda, [0002], in mobile phones, etc.) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the width of the electrode lead structure.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Kuroda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the getter unit and lead film have the gas permeability and moisture penetration values as set forth in the claim. As the battery product life and moisture & gas absorption properties ([0002]-[0003], [0011]-[0013], [0022]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said getter unit / lead film materials / properties, with said battery product life and moisture & gas absorption properties both varying as the getter unit / lead film materials / properties are varied, the precise getter unit / lead film materials / properties would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed getter unit / lead film materials / properties cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the getter unit / lead film materials / properties in the apparatus of Kuroda to obtain the desired balance between the battery product life and moisture & gas absorption properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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: instant dependent claim 21 discloses the getter unit is configured to discharge gas to an outside of the battery cell. Kuroda is considered to be the prior art reference of record closest to the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations. However, the getter unit layer of Kuroda is configured to provide a sealing to the structure and not to discharge gas to an outside of the battery cell. Modifying the structure of Kuroda to include this structure would not be obvious since it would alter the performance of the structure of Kuroda.
A further search did not reveal any additional references that alleviate the deficiencies of the previously applied prior art references. Therefore, instant dependent claim 21 is deemed to contain subject matter allowable over the cited prior art references of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 with respect to instant claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the language identified by the Examiner in Kuroda is ambiguous, and more importantly, FIG. 2(a) includes reference numeral 11 pointing to a distinctive portion illustrated by criss-crossed lines within a confined rectangle which clearly ends at the border defined by sealing portion 53 and does not extend beyond this sealing portion. At best, Kuroda merely teaches the layers 20 and 21 being wrapped around a circumference of the electrode tab 40b as shown by the front view illustrated by FIG. 2(b), but FIG. 2(a) much more clearly illustrates a top view of the battery cell and shows the sealing material terminating at the internal border of the sealing portion. Therefore, the tab sealing material 11 does not have any portion uncovered by the sealing portion 53. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the rejection of claim 1 under § 102 is improper and should be withdrawn.
However, Kuroda discloses at [0016] that sealant layer (35) of a predetermined shape is coated on the surface electrode tab portions (40a, 40b), it is not specifically stated that the sealant layer (35) is only coated to reference point 53. Broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned disclosure of Kuroda at [0016] is that sealant layer (35) coats an entire surface length of tab portions (40a, 40b). Further, [0016] also discloses seal portions (50, 51, 52, 53) are heat-sealed. Thus, reference character 53 merely denotes where the heat sealing take place. Heat sealing does not occur along the full length of tab portions (40a, 40b). Thus the end portions of tab portions (40a, 40fb) are coated in sealant (35) but not heat sealed with the other coating materials according to [0016]. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725