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 .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 09/29/25.
The applicant submits that the cited art does not teach the all of the amended limitations, and that the previous rejection is overcome.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification states that the molded portion may have a height of -2 mm to 2 mm as compared to that of the electrode assembly, and is preferably formed at substantially the same level [0063]. For the purposed of examination any range smaller than -2 mm to 2 mm is considered to be substantially the same.
Consequently, claims 7 and 10 are made indefinite as they depend on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a narrower range than those recited in claims 7 and 10.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10 – 12, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Fujiwara, US20090197160A1, and Hwang, US20170288181A1.
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara teaches a secondary battery [0002], comprising:
an electrode assembly (10)[fig. 6];
an electrode lead structure including an electrode lead (15)(16)[fig. 6] bonded to an electrode tab (11)(12) of the electrode assembly (10)[fig. 5] and
a molded portion (40) surrounding the electrode lead (15)(16)[fig. 10]; and
a spacer (30) inserted into a space [fig. 7] between the electrode lead (15)(16) structure and the electrode assembly (10)[fig. 10]
wherein the spacer has substantially the same height as the electrode assembly (6 mm for each spacer; two spacers being 12mm height)(electrode assembly formed to be the 12 mm height))[0090][0095][fig. 7].
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the molded portion and the spacer have substantially the same height as the electrode assembly.
Hwang teaches a secondary battery [0003] comprising an electrode assembly (110), and electrode lead structure (140) and a molded portion (surface layer (230)) having substantially the same thickness as the electrode assembly (configured to enclose the battery case and cover the entire side)[0035][0036][fig. 3]. Further, Hwang teaches covering the outside of the battery case to have the claimed thickness relationship prevents moisture permeation and electrolyte leakage [0036]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molded portion thickness of Hwang into the battery of Fujiwara to prevent moisture permeation and electrolyte leakage.
Regarding claim 7 combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Hwang teaches wherein the molded portion (230) of the electrode lead structure has a height of −2 mm to 2 mm compared to a height of the electrode assembly (configured to enclose the battery case and cover the entire side)[0035][0036][fig. 3].
Regarding claim 10, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the spacer (30) has a height of −2 mm to 2 mm (6 mm for each spacer; two spacers being 12mm height)[0095] compared to the height of the electrode assembly (12 mm height)[0090](formed to be the same height)[fig. 7].
Regarding claim 11, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the spacer is formed in plural (2 spacers (30))[fig. 11].
Regarding claim 12, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the spacer comprises an empty space therein (reserving portion)[0103] (44, fig. 14).
Regarding claim 14, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the spacer comprises a venting member (electrolyte supply ports (45))[0027][fig. 15]
Regarding claim 15, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the spacer comprises an electrolyte storage member therein (reserving portion)[0103].
Regarding claim 16, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the bonded electrode lead and electrode tab are bent (curved welded portion (36))[fig. 7].
Claims 2 – 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara, US20090197160A1 and Hwang, US20170288181A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim, US20240030561A1
Regarding claim 2, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the molded portion comprises at least one polymer selected from a group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate.
Lim teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising an electrode assembly (201) and an electrode lead structure comprising a tab (203)(204) and a lead (100)(110)[fig. 2] wherein the lead (100)(110) is surrounded by a molded portion (205)(206)[fig. 2]
wherein the molded portion comprises at least one polymer selected from a group consisting of polypropylene, (propylene)[0111]. Further, Lim teaches a molded portion formed of propylene allows for sufficient adhesion strength between the molded portion and the lead. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the molded portion material of Lim with the secondary battery of Fujiwara to achieve sufficient adhesion strength between the molded portion and the lead.
Regarding claim 3 combined, Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein a gas collection member is included inside the molded portion.
Lim teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising an electrode assembly (201) and an electrode lead structure comprising a tab (203)(204) and a lead (100)(110)[fig. 2] wherein the lead (100)(110) is surrounded by a molded portion (205)(206)[fig. 2]
wherein a gas collection member is included inside the molded portion (gas releasing portion (101))[fig. 2] Further, Lim teaches the gas collection member formed inside the molded portion increases safety while being simple and economical [0060[0061]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combined the gas collection member of Lim into the battery of Fujiwara to increase safety.
Regarding claim 4 combined, Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein a venting member is included inside the molded portion.
Lim teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising an electrode assembly (201) and an electrode lead structure comprising a tab (203)(204) and a lead (100)(110)[fig. 2] wherein the lead (100)(110) is surrounded by a molded portion (205)(206)[fig. 2]
wherein a venting member is included inside the molded portion (gas releasing portion (101))[fig. 2] Further, Lim teaches the venting member formed inside the molded portion increases safety while being simple and economical [0060[0061]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combined the venting member of Lim into the battery of Fujiwara to increase safety.
Regarding claim 6, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the molded portion comprises a polypropylene layer in an outermost portion thereof.
Lim teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising an electrode assembly (201) and an electrode lead structure comprising a tab (203)(204) and a lead (100)(110)[fig. 2] wherein the lead (100)(110) is surrounded by a molded portion (205)(206)[fig. 2]
wherein the molded portion comprises a polypropylene layer in an outermost portion thereof (propylene)[0111]. Further, Lim teaches a molded portion formed of propylene allows for sufficient adhesion strength between the molded portion and the lead. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the molded portion material of Lim with the secondary battery of Fujiwara to achieve sufficient adhesion strength between the molded portion and the lead.
Claims 5, 8 – 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara, US20090197160A1 and Hwang, US20170288181A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi, US20160141590A1.
Regarding claim 5, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein an electrolyte injection member is included inside the molded portion.
Choi teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (10), an electrode lead structure (17)(19)(137)(139), a spacer (110), and a molded portion (130)[fig. 1B]
wherein an electrolyte injection member (not labeled)[fig. 3] is included inside the molded portion (130)[0045]. Further, electrolyte injection members formed in the molded portion (cap) of a secondary battery are known in the art. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the injection member of Choi into the battery of Fujiwara as a simple substitution of known elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the spacer comprises at least one polymer selected from a group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate.
Choi teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (10), an electrode lead structure (17)(19)(137)(139), a spacer (110), and a molded portion (130)[fig. 1B]
wherein the spacer comprises at least one polymer selected from a group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate [0058]. Further, Choi teaches the spacer made of these materials prevents short circuiting. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the material of Choi into the battery of Fujiwara to prevent short circuiting,
Regarding claim 9 combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the spacer comprises a polypropylene layer in an outermost portion thereof.
Choi teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (10), an electrode lead structure (17)(19)(137)(139), a spacer (110), and a molded portion (130)[fig. 1B]
wherein the spacer comprises a polypropylene layer in an outermost portion thereof. [0058]. Further, Choi teaches the spacer made of these materials prevents short circuiting. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the material of Choi into the battery of Fujiwara to prevent short circuiting,
Regarding claim 13, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein the spacer comprises a gas collection member therein.
Choi teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (10), an electrode lead structure (17)(19)(137)(139), a spacer (110), and a molded portion (130)[fig. 1B]
wherein the spacer comprises a gas collection member therein (space within spacer (210) below vent (not labeled))[fig. 8b]. Further, Choi teaches the gas collection member (space) to electrically insulate the battery [0060]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the gas collection member of Choi into the battery of Fujiwara to improve insulation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara, US20090197160A1 and Hwang, US20170288181A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuta, US20130078507A1.
Regarding claim 17, combined Fujiwara teaches the secondary battery of claim 1.
Fujiwara does not teach wherein, in the electrode lead structure, polypropylene is coated on the electrode lead.
Mizuta teaches a secondary battery comprising a lead structure (2a)(3a)[fig. 1][0002] wherein, in the electrode lead structure, polypropylene is coated on the electrode lead [0062]. Further, Mizuta teaches the coating layer to improve binding properties [0040]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating material of Mizuta into the battery of Fujiwara to improve binding strength.
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights