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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “A secondary battery comprising: a pouch, in which a sealing portion formed on an edge of the pouch is sealed when an electrode assembly and an electrolyte are enclosed; a valve which is mounted the sealing portion so that one end of the valve is disposed inside the pouch, and another end of the valve is disposed outside the pouch and discharges a gas generated inside the pouch to the outside, wherein […] a gap is generated in the portion” (emphasis added). It is unclear from the claim as to whether “the portion” is intended to refer back to “the sealing portion” or to a distinct ‘portion’ thereof. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP No. 11086823, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses a secondary battery (para 0029, 0033, and 0063), wherein fig. 2(a)-(c) depict the secondary battery comprises: a pouch [3a],[3b],[5] in which a “sealing portion” [5a],[5b] formed on an edge of the pouch is sealed when an “electrochemical reaction element” [1] contains an electrode and electrolyte as shown in fig. 1(b) (para 0026-0027 and 0041-0042); an opening (e.g. valve structure) is mounted on the sealing portion [5a],[5b] so that one end of the valve structure is disposed inside the pouch [3a],[3b],[5] and another end of the valve structure is disposed outside the pouch [3a],[3b],[5] for “gas release” (e.g. gas discharge) generated inside the pouch [3a],[3b],[5] (para 0041-0042); and wherein the valve structure comprises a conduit or channel (e.g. claimed “inner tube”) entirely filled with “adhesive portions” (e.g. claimed “adhesive”) [6a],[6b] as shown in figs. 2(b)-(c) that are deformable “resin” (e.g. claimed “gel or solid state”) when swelling occurs due to increase in pressure (para 0009, 0034, and 0041-0042). Kato further discloses in figs. 2(b)-(c) that when the pressure increases in the pouch [3a],[3b],[5] due to the swelling occurring, a “gas outlet” (i.e. claimed “gap”) [7] is formed or generated in a portion that is filled with the adhesive [6a],[6b] due to the pressure of the gas acting upon a surface of the adhesive [6a],[6b], thereby releasing or discharging the gas within the pouch [3a],[3b],[5] to the outside (para 0042); fig. 2(c) shows the gap [7] extending along a longitudinal directional of the inner tube according to cross-section [B]-[B] line of fig. 2(a) (para 0041).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Kato further suggests the adhesive [6a],[6b] comprises an epoxy or acrylate binder (para 0009 and 0034).
With respect to claim 10, Kato further depicts in figs. 2(a)-(c) the gap [7] within the adhesive [6a],[6b] is capable of disappearing (e.g. the adhesive [6a],[6b] reforms to the shape shown in fig. 2(c)) after releasing or discharging the gas (para 0041-0042).
With respect to claim 11, Kato further depicts in figs. 4(a)-(c) an alternative embodiment to figs. 2(a)-(c), wherein figs. 11(a)-(c) show the valve structure filled with the adhesive [6a],[6b] in parallel to “electric terminals” (i.e. claimed “electrode lead”) [2a],[2b] (shown in figs. 2A)-(c)) that is drawn out of from the electrode assembly (of the electrochemical reaction element [1]) to protrude from the pouch (para 0026-0027, 0045-0046, and 0068).
With respect to claim 12, Kato further discloses coupling plural secondary batteries together to form a secondary battery module (para 0029).
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al (US 2003/0232236).
With respect to claim 1, Mitchell discloses “an apparatus for venting or expelling gas” generated within electrochemical cells or batteries, such as a secondary battery of lithium-ion polymer (Abstract; para 0001-0003). Mitchell further discloses that for the secondary battery (of the lithium-ion polymer) is contained with a protective packaging of a flexible bag or pouch (para 0004), wherein figs. 1-6 teach the electrochemical cell (i.e. secondary battery) [12] (in figs. 1-2) or [102] (in figs. 3-6) is “encapsulated” within flexible packaging material/pouch/container system [14] (in figs. 1-2) or [104] (in figs. 3-6) (para 0027-0028); thus the container system [104] in figs. 3-6 is the claimed “pouch” [104]. Figs. 3-6 further depict: the electrochemical cell [102] within the pouch [104] in which a sealing portion is formed on a “periphery” (i.e. claimed “edge”) of the pouch [104] (para 0028 and 0032), with the electrochemical cell [102] having a cathode and anode (e.g. claimed “electrode assembly”) and electrolyte (para 0002); a “vent” (i.e. claimed “valve”) which is mounted on the sealing portion (para 0029 and 0033), such that fig. 5 shows that one end of the valve is disposed inside the pouch [104] and another end of the valve is disposed outside the pouch [104] to vent, release, or discharge the gas “generated or evolved” within the pouch [104] to outside or atmosphere (para 0001, 0029, 0033, and 0035; claim 1); fig. 5 further shows the valve comprises an inner tubular structure entirely filled with a “sealant material 118 [that] adheres to surfaces” (e.g. claimed “adhesive” [118]) and is made of a material that is capable of being deformed when swelling occurs (as shown for example in figs. 8-9) (para 0033-0035). Mitchell further discloses that when the swelling occurs due to increase in pressure of the gas acting on a surface of the adhesive [118], a gap is generated in a portion that is filled with the adhesive [118] since “gas pressure begins to push or displace the semi-solid or possibly liquid sealant material 118 outwardly towards the ambient atmosphere, and/or may push or displace the semi-solid or possibly liquid sealant material 118 upwardly and/or downwardly against one or both of the flange-like surfaces 114a,114b” (emphasis added), thereby passing the gas to the outside or atmosphere (i.e. “a gap is generated in the portion that is filled with the adhesive due to the pressure of the gas acting on a surface of the adhesive, and the gas within the pouch is discharged to the outside through the gap, the gap along a longitudinal directional of the inner tubular structure” as claimed) (Abstract; para 0033-0035 and 0042).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Mitchell further discloses the adhesive [118] is “one or more thermoplastic or thermoset polymeric materials” which “include all thermoplastics” (para 0039-0040), which encompasses epoxy and acrylate.
With respect to claim 10, Mitchell further discloses that after venting or discharging the gas to the outside (i.e. atmosphere), the adhesive [118] changes for “substantially reforming the original seal” (i.e.. “the gap formed in the inner tubular structure disappears after discharging the gas” as claimed) (para 0042).
With respect to claim 11, Mitchell further discloses in figs. 3-5 the valve is disposed in parallel to “electrode tabs” (i.e. claimed “electrode lead”) [102a],[102b] drawn out from the electrochemical cell [102] (which includes the electrode assembly) to protrude from the pouch [104] (para 0002 and 0028).
With respect to claim 12, Mitchell further suggests coupling plural electrochemical cells (i.e. secondary batteries) together (para 0004-0005), thereby forming a secondary battery module.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2003/0232236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al (KR 20190126617, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 2, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Mitchell is limited in that an outer tube mounted to the inner tubular structure with a sealed space therebetween is not suggested.
Hwang teaches in fig. 1 a “venting device” [15] to discharge a gas from a pouch [131],[132] for a secondary battery (para 0001 and 0043), similar to the pouch [104] and venting of Mitchell. Hwang further teaches in figs. 7-8 the venting device [15] comprises an “opening and closing adjustment unit” (i.e. valve) [152] including an inner tube [153], similar to the inner tubular structure of Mitchell, with an outer tube [154] of a polymer mounted longitudinally to the inner tube such that both ends of the inner tube [153] are mounted to both ends of the outer tube [154] (para 0051-0053), thereby forming a chamber including a sealed space formed between the outer tube [154] and inner tube [153] (e.g. inner tubular structural tube of Mitchell); the inner tubular structure of Mitchell fully capable of being deformed inside the outer tube [154] of Hwang. Hwang cites the advantage of mounting the inner tube within the outer tube as easily discharging the gas from the pouch (para 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the inner tubular structure of Mitchell to the outer tube of Hwang (and the resultant chamber formed therebetween) to gain the advantage of easily discharging the gas from the pouch.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Mitchell and Hwang has: Mitchell teaching in figs. 3-5 the inner tubular structure capable of being deformed when pressure inside the pouch [104] increases to result in a volume of the inner tubular structure being contracted when deformed (para 0030-0033); and Hwang teaching that the outer tube [154] is capable of not being deformed during the swelling due to several polymer layers comprising the outer tube [154] (para 0074 and 0079).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references Mitchell and Hwang has: Mitchell teaching in figs. 3-5 the inner tubular structure (which also includes the outer tube [154] of Hwang) is a material contained in the pouch [104]; and Hwang teaching the inner and outer tubes [153],[154] are each made of polypropylene (para 0011-0012, 0048-0049, 0053, and 0074), wherein the outer tube [154] comprises several layers of the polypropylene compared to the inner tube [153] (para 0079); thus the outer tube [154] has a relatively low flexibility and high rigidity compared to that of the inner tube [153].
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Mitchell and Hwang has: Hwang teaching in figs. 7-8 the chamber between the inner and outer tubes [153],[154] is fully capable of having N2 injected therein based upon a composition of the secondary battery (para 0001, 0004-0005, 0007, and 0066-0070).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Mitchell and Hwang has: Mitchell teaching the inner tubular structure in fig. 5 is circular cross-section and Hwang teaching the outer tube [151] and inner tube [153] in fig. 3 are circular cross-sections.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2003/0232236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinuta et al (US 9,397,325).
With respect to claim 9, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Mitchell is limited in that plural hooks on the inner tubular structure are not suggested.
Kinuta teaches a vent (i.e. valve) that allows gas generated within a laminate (i.e. pouch) to release to outside (Abstract), wherein fig. 3 shows the valve has a spring that includes “spring element portions” (i.e. claimed “hooks”) [312] installed on surface portions of an inner tube [311] to face each other, whereby the hooks [312] are physically coupled to each other in a ‘hook-and-loop’ fastener manner. Kinuta cites the advantage of the hooks as releasing the gas generated in the laminate from a gas hole and then tightly closing the gas hole (col. 2, lines 27-34; col. 3, lines 12-28; col. 7, lines 39-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the hooks of Kinuta with the adhesive of Mitchell to gain the advantage of allowing the gas generated within the pouch to discharge and then tightly closing or sealing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 4-8 filed 10/27/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the “sealing portion”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been maintained for the new reasoning set forth above.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify how the “gap is generated” as discussed during the interview 8/13/2025 (see interview summary mailed 8/15/2025); this previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify “the gas is discharged within the pouch to the outside through the gap”; this previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 2 has been amended to clarify how the respective first and second ends are connected to each other; this previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
On p. 5, Applicant provides sufficient explanation and support (as suggested during the interview 8/13/2025) that the claimed “gaseous nitrogen (N2)” from claim 5 is distinct from the claimed “gas being within the pouch is discharged”; this previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
On p. 5-6, Applicant provides sufficient explanation and support (as suggested during the interview 8/13/2025) that the claimed “the gap formed in the inner tube disappears after discharging the gas” from claim 10; this previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
102 and 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-8 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references Kato or Mitchell being applied in the current rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP No. 2006179442 (and associated machine translation) is relevant for being cited in a corresponding foreign counterpart application to the present application, to which JP No. 11086823 is referenced within JP No. 2006179442 (cited as JP 1186823).
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights