DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/22/2026:
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 14-16 have been newly added.
The previous and new prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 14 requires a limitation, “a gas penetration portion located at a facing surface of an electrode lead; and a coating portion location at a facing surface of inner layer of the pouch case,” which is not required by claim 1 or 9, while claims 1 and 9 requires the limitation, “wherein the gas discharge portion comprise a material which is stable under secondary battery operation conditions, and wherein the gas discharge material comprises polypropylene (PP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a mixture thereof,” which is not required by claim 14.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-16 have withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0231307 to Ha in view of US Patent Publication 4,678,725 to Kikuchi et al.
With respect to claim 1, Ha teaches a pouch-shaped case comprising: a receiving portion 225 configured to receive an electrode assembly 100; a sealed portion 221-224 formed as a result of hermetically sealing a periphery of the receiving portion 225; and a gas discharge portion 120 or 160 disposed in the sealed portion 221, the gas discharge portion 120 or 160 having one end disposed in contact with the receiving portion 225 and the other end disposed in contact with an outside, the gas discharge portion 120 or 160 configured to selectively discharge only gas (Ha: Section [0052]; Figs. 1-4).
Ha further teaches the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge material comprises polyethylene (PE) (Ha: Section [0052]; Figs. 1-4)
Ha does not specifically teach the pouch-shaped case comprising, wherein the gas discharge portion comprise a material which is stable under secondary battery operation conditions, and wherein the gas discharge material comprises polypropylene (PP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a mixture thereof.
However, Kikuchi et al. teach a hermetically sealed storage battery comprising a material of synthetic resin used as the housing, it has been found that polyethylene and polypropylene are more conducive to an efficient discharge of the internal gas and a better gas sealing effect than AS (acrylonitrile-styrene copolymer) or ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer). The thickness of the resin film or sheet is also a factor and the thicker the sheet or film, the better is the above result (Kikuchi et al.: Column 3, Lines 58-65). In other words, polypropylene would be an obvious substitution for polyethylene, which means the gas discharge material of Kikuchi et al. could be polypropylene since it has an efficient discharge of the internal gas.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Ha with the teaching above from Kikuchi et al. with the motivation of having a means such it has been found that polyethylene and polypropylene are more conducive to an efficient discharge of the internal gas and a better gas sealing effect than AS (acrylonitrile-styrene copolymer) or ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer).
With respect to claims 2-3, Ha in view of Kikuchi et al. teach the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge material comprises polypropylene.
Ha in view of Kikuchi et al. teach the same gas discharge material, therefor, lacking of any clear structural or composition distinction between the claimed gas discharge material of the battery and those disclosed by Ha in view of Kikuchi et al., it would have expected for the battery of Ha in view of Kikuchi et al. to have the gas discharge portion 120 or 160 is made of a gas discharge material having a higher gas permeability than a moisture permeability and an annual moisture permeability of 50 ppm or less as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 6, Ha teaches the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge portion wraps an electrode lead protruding outwards from the electrode assembly (Ha: Section [0052]; Figs. 1-4).
With respect to claim 7, Ha teaches the pouch-shaped case, wherein the pouch-shaped case 200 comprises a laminate sheet, and contact portions of the gas discharge portion 120 or 160 and the laminate sheet are coated with polypropylene (Ha: Section [0049]; Figs. 1-4).
With respect to claim 8, Ha teaches a secondary battery comprising: the pouch-shaped case 200; and an electrode assembly 100 (Ha: Section [0052]; Figs. 1-4).
With respect to claim 9, Ha teaches a secondary battery manufacturing method comprising: (S1) applying a gas discharge material 120 or 160 having a higher gas permeability than a moisture permeability to at least a part of a surface of an electrode lead 110 or 150 of an electrode assembly 100; and (S2) receiving the electrode assembly 100 in a receiving portion 225 formed in a pouch-shaped case 200 having a gas discharge portion 120 or 160 and then hermetically sealing the case 200 (Ha: Sections [0049] and [0052]; Figs. 1-4).
Ha further teaches the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge material comprises polyethylene (PE) (Ha: Section [0052]; Figs. 1-4)
Ha does not specifically teach the pouch-shaped case comprising, wherein the gas discharge portion comprise a material which is stable under secondary battery operation conditions, and wherein the gas discharge material comprises polypropylene (PP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a mixture thereof.
However, Kikuchi et al. teach a hermetically sealed storage battery comprising a material of synthetic resin used as the housing, it has been found that polyethylene and polypropylene are more conducive to an efficient discharge of the internal gas and a better gas sealing effect than AS (acrylonitrile-styrene copolymer) or ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer). The thickness of the resin film or sheet is also a factor and the thicker the sheet or film, the better is the above result (Kikuchi et al.: Column 3, Lines 58-65). In other words, polypropylene would be an obvious substitution for polyethylene, which means the gas discharge material of Kikuchi et al. could be polypropylene since it has an efficient discharge of the internal gas.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Ha with the teaching above from Kikuchi et al. with the motivation of having a means such it has been found that polyethylene and polypropylene are more conducive to an efficient discharge of the internal gas and a better gas sealing effect than AS (acrylonitrile-styrene copolymer) or ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer).
Ha in view of Kikuchi et al. teach the same gas discharge material, therefor, lacking of any clear structural or composition distinction between the claimed gas discharge material of the battery and those disclosed by Ha in view of Kikuchi et al., it would have expected for the battery of Ha in view of Kikuchi et al. to have a gas discharge material having a higher gas permeability than a moisture permeability as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 11, Ha teaches the secondary battery manufacturing method, wherein, in step S2, the gas discharge material 120 or 160 and the pouch-shaped case 200 are coupled to each other by using thermally adhesive synthetic resin (thermal fusion performed at least once to ten times) (Ha: Section [0049]; Figs. 1-4).
With respect to claim 12, Ha teaches the secondary battery manufacturing method, wherein the gas discharge portion 120 or 160 undergoes a surface reforming process by using thermally adhesive synthetic resin (Ha: Section [0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2012/0231307 to Ha in view of US Patent Publication 4,678,725 to Kikuchi et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0216594 to You et al.
With respect to claim 5, Ha further teaches the pouch-shaped case, wherein the safety film 120 and 160 may have a thickness of approximately 20% to approximately 50% of that of the first or the second electrode tab (Ha: Section [0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Ha does not specifically teach the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge portion has a thickness of 100 μm to 600 μm.
You et al. teach a battery comprising electrode leads, wherein a thickness of the electrode leads is approximately 200 μm to 500 μm (You et al.: Section [0017]). With the teaching from You et al., the thickness of the safety film 120 and 160 would be 40 μm to 150 μm.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Ha with the teaching above from You et al. with the motivation of having a means such the specific thickness of the electrode leads are very common in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Ha further teaches the secondary battery manufacturing method, wherein the safety film 120 and 160 may have a thickness of approximately 20% to approximately 50% of that of the first or the second electrode tab (Ha: Section [0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Ha does not specifically teach the pouch-shaped case, wherein the gas discharge portion has a thickness of 100 μm to 600 μm.
You et al. teach a battery comprising electrode leads, wherein a thickness of the electrode leads is approximately 200 μm to 500 μm (You et al.: Section [0017]). With the teaching from You et al., the thickness of the safety film 120 and 160 would be 40 μm to 150 μm.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Ha with the teaching above from You et al. with the motivation of having a means such the specific thickness of the electrode leads are very common in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/28/2026
Prosecution Insights