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 Objections
The objection to claim 8 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2016/0036024).
Choi et al. disclose a venting system for a pouch-type lithium secondary battery (abstract). The reference teaches a pouch having a sealed edge portion with a valve fixed thereto such that one end of the value structure faces inside the pouch and the other end faces outside the pouch (see Fig 3 and para [0015]-[0023]). The reference teaches that an electrode assembly is present within the pouch (see para [0006]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the presence of an electrolyte within the pouch, it would inherently be present in order to be a functional battery. Choi’s valve structure reads on the claimed invention as shown in the following annotated Figure:
PNG
media_image1.png
369
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to the newly added limitation requiring that “the discharge hole is formed in the body proximal the passage”, the specification does not provide a definition for the phrase “proximal the passage.” The ordinary meaning of “proximal” as per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is:
situated close to : PROXIMATE
: next to or nearest the point of attachment or origin, a central point, or the point of view
especially : located toward the center of the body
see https:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure is “situated close to.” Either of the gap between 226 and 229 or the gap between the gate 225 and the O-rings 223 in Fig 6) are considered to be discharge holes situated close to (i.e. “proximal”) to the passage.
With regard to claim 7, the gap formed between 223 and 225 in Fig 4A of Choi et al. corresponds to the claimed “discharge hole…formed in the body proximal to the passage” and the gap between 226 and 229 corresponds to the claimed “auxiliary discharge hole” that is “distal to the passage such that the gate is between the discharge hole and the auxiliary discharge hole.”
With regard to claim 8, Choi et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the gate portion of the valve has a hemispherical cross-section and functions in the manner of a ballspring type valve wherein the curved surface of the structure protrudes such that it is inserted in the passage to the interior of the pouch and is sealed. The portion that protrudes reads on the claimed “pillar.” The outermost circumferential surface of the “pillar” seals the inner circumferential surface of the passage via an O-ring.
With regard to claim 9, the curved portions of the hemispherical gate taught by Choi et al. read on the claimed “inclined surface along a circumference of the pillar.”
With regard to claim 10, see Figure 2.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated JP 2020-63094 (see English machine translation as submitted by Applicant).
JP2020-63094 discloses a secondary battery including electrodes and an electrolyte in a pouch having a gas vent structure protruding from a sealed portion of the pouch (see Fig 1 and para [0010], [0019]). The structure as shown in Figure 4A reads on the invention of claims 1-2, Portions 210 read on the claimed “hook protrusion”, ball 214 reads on the gate portion and O-ring 212 seals the two together in the absence of discharge gas form the battery in the body of the pouch.
With regard to the newly added limitation requiring that “the discharge hole is formed in the body proximal the passage”, the specification does not provide a definition for the phrase “proximal the passage.” The ordinary meaning of “proximal” as per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is:
situated close to : PROXIMATE
: next to or nearest the point of attachment or origin, a central point, or the point of view
especially : located toward the center of the body
see https:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure is “situated close to.” The discharge hole is considered to be either the space formed between 210 and 212 or O2 in Fig 4A. Both are considered to be situated close (i.e. proximal) to the passage.
With regard to claims 3-4, JP’094 teaches a rupture layer formed on an interior facing end of a valve structure (see 1a in Fig 4B, for instance). The reference teaches that the rupture layer seals the interior contents and prevents infiltration of exterior gases and moisture into the electrolyte (see para [0042]-[0043]). While the reference does not specifically state that the rupture layer is non-reactive with the electrolyte, it would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the layer would necessarily be non-reactive with the inner contents of the pouch.
With regard to claim 7, the above-noted gap between 210 and 212 reads on the discharge hole “formed in the body proximal to the passage” and the gap O2 reads on the claimed “auxiliary discharge hole” that is “distal to the passage such that the gate is between the discharge hole and the auxiliary discharge hole.”
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2016/0036024).
Choi et al. disclose all of the features of the claims, as detailed above, except for a battery module that is formed from a plurality of pouches as set forth in claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a battery module including multiple pouch cells as taught by Choi et al. in order to provide a larger capacity battery (see para [0002]).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2016/0036024) in view of JP 2020-63094 (see English machine translation as submitted by Applicant) .
Choi et al. disclose all of the features of the claims, as set forth in section 102, above, except for the presence of a “blocking film” mounted on the inlet-side of the passage that can be removed and prevents electrolyte from being permeated.
JP2020-63094 discloses a secondary battery in a pouch having a gas vent structure protruding from a sealed portion of the pouch (see Fig 1). The reference teaches a rupture layer formed on an interior facing end of a valve structure (see 1a in Fig 4B, for instance). The reference teaches that the rupture layer seals the interior contents and prevent infiltration of exterior gases and moisture into the electrolyte (see para [0042]-[0043]). While the reference does not specifically state that the rupture layer is non-reactive with the electrolyte, it would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the layer would necessarily be non-reactive with the inner contents of the pouch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a non-reactive rupture layer to the interior facing side of the vent channel taught therein in order to provide better prevention of infiltration of exterior moisture and gases into the inner portion of the pouch housing the battery components.
With regard to claim 5, JP’094 discloses an embodiment wherein the rupture layer is formed form a metal film (para [0025]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from any non-reactive material that could be formed as a thin film. The reference discloses the use of polytetrafluoroethylene as an equivalent to metal for other parts of the valve structure (see para [0032] for instance) and also discloses the use of polypropylene [0021] as suitable for forming the battery container. Thus, use of a polytetrafluoroethylene film or polypropylene for a rupture film layer in the valve taught by Choi et al. would have been obvious.
With regard to claim 6, JP’094 discloses forming the rupture layer via an “easy peel” method as shown in Figure 4A (see para [0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to attach a rupture layer via a pressure sensitive adhesive to the interior facing opening of the valve structure taught by Choi et al. in order to provide a removable barrier layer.
With regard to claim 8, Choi et al. disclose a gate having a hemispherical cross-section with an inclined surface that extends in the passage towards the pouch interior.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-63094 (see English machine translation as submitted by Applicant).
With regard to claim 5, JP’094 discloses an embodiment wherein the rupture layer is formed form a metal film (para [0025]) but also describes the use of polymer films for the battery packaging (see para [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from any non-reactive material that could be formed as a thin film for the rupture film. The reference discloses the use of polytetrafluoroethylene as an equivalent to metal for other parts of the valve structure (see para [0032] for instance) and also discloses the use of polypropylene [0020] as suitable for forming the battery container. Thus, use of a polytetrafluoroethylene film or polypropylene for a rupture film layer would have been obvious.
With regard to claim 6, JP’094 discloses forming the rupture layer via an “easy peel” method as shown in Figure 4A (see para [0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to attach a rupture layer via a pressure sensitive adhesive to the interior facing opening of the valve structure in order to provide a removable barrier layer.
With regard to claim 10, JP’094 discloses the use of the gas release valve in a pouch containing a battery but does not specifically disclosure the orientation of the valve with respect to the electrodes exiting the pouch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each element exiting the pouch adjacent to one another on the same side of the pouch such that only a single side of the pouch would need to be sealed. Providing the vent in the middle between external positive and negative electrode would have been obvious to allow for optimal venting of gases.
With regard to claim 11, formation of a battery module using the pouch structures taught by JP’094 would have been obvious in order to achieve a desired capacity for a given application.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-63094 (see English machine translation as submitted by Applicant) in view of KR 2007-0103890 (see English machine translation provided by Applicant).
JP’094 teaches the structure as claimed but fails to disclose a gate having a body seated on a hook protrusion and a pillar that protrudes into the passage as required by claim 8. Instead, JP’094 discloses a ballspring type gate. However, the reference states that different valve types aside from ballsprings can be used such as “a duckbill type, an umbrella type, or the like.” See para [0031].
KR’890 discloses a pressure-discharged venting system for a secondary battery. The vent structure taught therein has a gate structure wherein a body of the gate is seated on protrusions in the vent passage and a pillar structure extends form this gate into the passage in the direction of the battery itself (see Figure 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from known gate structures in the battery valve art to use as alternatives to the specifically names examples provided by JP’094. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a gate structure as suggested by KR’890 in place of the ball-type gate taught by JP’094 in view of the teaching therein that other gate structures could be equivalently used. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a substitution in view of the functional equivalence of the different structures.
With regard to claim 9, see Fig 2 showing an inclined surface at the circumference of the pillar disposed between figure numbers 102 and 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the newly added limitation requiring that “the discharge hole is formed in the body proximal the passage.” However, as noted in the rejections above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term proximal is “situated close to.” The discharge holes taught by both JP2020-63094 and Choi et al. can reasonably be considered to be situated close to the passages taught therein.
With regard to claim 7, the term proximal has a narrower scope in view of the requirement for a distal auxiliary discharge hole. However, the limitations are still met for the reasons set forth in the body of the rejections. As noted therein, the gap formed between the the o-rings and gate portions ((210 and 225 in JP’094 and Choi, respectively) meet the definition of proximal to the passage with the openings O2 (JP’094) and the gap between 226 and 229 in Choi being distal thereto.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm ET.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights