DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending in the application, with claims 15-16 currently withdrawn. Previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been maintained for claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-15 and 17, with newly added claim 18 also rejected.
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, 5, 9, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (KR 20180082748, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery cell ([0034]) comprising: an electrode assembly (ref 100) containing a plurality of electrode plates ([0034]) stacked with a separator ([0034]) interposed therebetween; and a battery case (ref 200) in which the electrode assembly (ref 100) is mounted onto a receiving part (Fig 2), wherein the electrode assembly (ref 100) comprises a plurality of electrode tabs (refs 300) respectively formed to extend from (Fig 2, [0034]) the plurality of electrode plates ([0034], Fig 2), wherein the plurality of electrode tabs (refs 300) are mutually arranged on a same line (Fig 2) with a same polarity (Fig 2) to form an electrode tab arrangement body (Fig 2, at joining of refs 300), wherein one or more protection members (refs 401+410) are joined to the ends (Fig 2) of the plurality of electrode tabs (refs 300), and wherein the one or more protection members are configured to be broken ([0035], [0041]) when heat of a first temperature or more is applied ([0035]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first temperature is a temperature of the resistance heat generated when a current equal to or greater than a first current flows through ([0035]-[0041]) the electrode plate ([0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an electrode lead (ref 400) that is electrically connected to the electrode tab arrangement body (Fig 2, at joining of refs 300) and protruding outward (Fig 1) of the battery case (ref 200, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the battery case (ref 200) comprises a sealing part (ref 500) having a structure in which the outer periphery (Figs 1-4, [0034]) is sealed by heat-sealing ([0034]), and at least one of upper and lower parts of the electrode lead (ref 400) comprises a lead film ([0034], tape) located at a portion corresponding to (Figs 1-4) the sealing part (ref 500).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode lead comprises a first electrode lead part (part of ref 400 inside of ref 200, Fig 1) and a second electrode lead part (part of ref 400 extending out of ref 200, Fig 1), the first electrode lead part (part of ref 400 inside of ref 200, Fig 1) extends along an end (Fig 1) of the electrode tab arrangement body (Fig 1, at joining of refs 300), and the second electrode lead part (part of ref 400 extending out of ref 200, Fig 1) protrudes from the first electrode lead part (part of ref 400 inside of ref 200, Fig 1) in an outer direction (part of ref 400 extending out of ref 200, Fig 1) of the battery case (ref 200).
Regarding claim 14, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lead film ([0034], tape) is located on the second electrode lead part (Figs 1-4, depicted on bottom at ref 500, sealing part) .
Regarding claim 17, Kwon et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery module ([0002]) comprising the battery cell ([0034]) as set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the one or more protection members (refs 401+410) are directly joined (Fig 2) to the ends of the plurality of electrode tabs (refs 300).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20180082748, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minoru et al. (JP 0850920, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the one or more protection members are joined to each of the ends of the plurality of electrode tabs.
Minoru et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery (Abstract) including positive electrode plates (refs 10) each connected to leads (refs 21), with each of the leads connected to an individual fuse (refs 20). This configuration enhances internal short circuiting detection and enhances overall battery safety (Abstract).
Minoru et al. and Kwon et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the structure of Minoru et al. having fuses on each electrode lead into the structure of Kwon et al. to enhance short circuiting detection, enhancing overall battery safety and performance.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a protection member of the one or more protection members is joined to a part of the ends of the plurality of electrode tabs, and another protection member of the one or more protection members is joined to rest of the ends of the plurality of electrode tabs.
Minoru et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery (Abstract) including negative electrode plates (refs 14) each connected to lugs (refs 17) of leads (refs 7), with a fuse ([0032]) connected to different parts of the battery structure, at the lug (ref 17) and an end of the lug (ref 17) connected at a battery case surface (ref 23, [0032]). This configuration enhances internal short-circuiting detection and enhances overall battery safety (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the fuse structure of Minoru et al. having fuses on the electrode lead and end lead structure at a casing structure into the structure of Kwon et al. to enhance short circuiting detection, enhancing overall battery safety and performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20180082748, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the first current is a current of 10C or more. However, Kwon et al. discloses an array of electronic devices powered by the battery of the invention at [0002], which include operating currents of 10C or more.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention that the sensitivity / current the fuse is responsive to is a least 10C or greater, to provide protection for the array of electronic devices disclosed at [0002].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20180082748, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2011/0012704).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the one or more protection members comprises a Pb-Sn (lead-tin) alloy.
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs 1-29, a battery fuse (Title, Abstract) comprising a Pb-Sn alloy ([0060]). This is a readily available alloy know to be used for a fuse, enhancing performance of the fuse and enhancing battery safety ([0060], Abstract).
Kimura et al. and Kwon et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery fuses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the fuse of Kwon et al. of the Pb-Sn alloy disclosed by Kimura et al. since it is a readily known available alloy and to enhance the performance and safety of the battery.
Further, the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific Pb-Sn alloy (i.e. 30-70) composition of the fuse. As the melting temperature of the fuse is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said alloy composition, with said melting temperature varying as the alloy composition is varied, as evidenced by Kimura et al. ([0060]), the precise Pb-Sn alloy composition of said fuse 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 Pb-Sn alloy composition of said fuse 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 Pb-Sn alloy composition in the fuse of Kwon et al. as taught by Kimura et al. to obtain desired fuse melting temperature (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
Claims 10 and 11 are 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 10 discloses an end of the electrode tab arrangement body is in contact with the electrode lead. Kwon et al. is considered to be the prior art reference of record closest to the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations. However, it does not disclose nor render obvious the aforementioned claimed structural features. Namely, as persuasively argued by the Applicants, Kwon et al. does not disclose the electrical connection of the electrode lead in contact with the electrode tab arrangement body, within the structure of the battery cell structure of claim 1 and 9, rather, it appears to be in contact with the fuse / protection members instead. Further, there is no obvious motivation to combine the electrode lead as set forth in the instant claim considering that would essentially bypass the protection members and alter / destroy the functioning of the reference as set forth in its disclosure.
A further search did not reveal any additional prior art references that alleviate the deficiencies of the previously applied prior art references. Therefore, instant dependent claim 10 discloses features when, read within the scope of the structure of claims 1 and 9, appear to be allowable over the cited prior art references of record. Further, instant dependent claim 11 is objected to since it depends from instant dependent claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to instant claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 17-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the 8/13/2025 office action relies on two different components (refs 401 + 410) for the protection member. It is agreed that structures 401 + 410 are being relied upon for the protection member. This is proper when considering [0041] of Kwon et al., which states “the first connection part 401 and the second connection part 402 are configured to effectively induce power failure of the battery cell at a high temperature” (note bolded text for emphasis). Thus, structure 401 acts in consort with fuse 410 to induce power failure, hence 401 + 410 have been referred to as a “protection member” above and in the 8/13/2025 office action. Further, nothing in the instant specification states the protection member must be a unitary structure. Further, the instant specification states different materials may comprise the protection member at P10/L1-11. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Further, Applicants argue that Kwon et al. does not meet the limitation “one ore more protection members are configured to be broken when heat of a first temperature or more is applied”. However, as stated in the previous paragraph, structure 401 + 410 are considered to be the equivalent of the protection member of the instant claims and Kwon et al. does state at [0041] the thermal fuse is blown. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see P7-8, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under Kwon et al. as stated in the 8/13/2025 office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10-11 has been withdrawn.
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