DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending as amended on 22 April 2026, claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment does not distinguish from 2016/0028068A1(Yang) or US2014/0011060A1 (Yang’060).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Yang, Applicant asserts that Yang’s assembly is structurally and functionally distinct from the instantly claimed. However, Applicant fails to specifically point out what structural and functional features of Yang are different from the instant claims.
Applicant argues that Yang does not disclose that second lead plate 32 includes a coating layer comprising a metal or metal oxide. The examiner disagrees. Yang discloses that the second lead plate 32 may be made of the same material as the first lead plate 31 ([0060]), which may be made of copper coated with nickel ([0059]), which meets a coating layer comprising a metal.
Applicant argues that Yang describes the second sealant 35 is attached to each of the lead plates 31 and 32 therefore fails to teach the non-adhesive material is not adhered to the insulation film attached to the electrode lead. The examiner disagrees. As shown in Fig. 2, the first sealant 34 is disposed within the gap formed between the lead plates 31 and 32 (Fig. 2 and [0070]), which is not adhered to the second sealant 35, which can be made of a film of insulating properties([0070] and [0076]). Thus Yang teaches the non-adhesive material (i.e., sealant 34) is not adhered to the insulation film attached to the electrode lead (i.e., sealant 35).
With respect to Yang’060, Applicant argues that Yang’060 does not teach a coating layer comprising a metal or metal oxide. The examiner disagrees. Yang’060 teaches that the electrode lead can be made of nickel-coated copper ([0062]), thus the presence of a coating layer comprising a metal.
Applicant argues that Yang’060 does not disclose "a bottom surface of the electrode lead has a gas release portion having a structure formed by surface-treatment with a non-adhesive material, or by removing the coating layer, wherein the non-adhesive material is coated on the coating layer, and is not adhered to the insulation film attached to the electrode lead" as recited in amended claim 1. The examiner disagrees. As set forth in previous Office action, Yang’060 teaches the electrode lead is coated with a sealing film of insulating property such as polyimide (Fig. 4, [0064] and [0085]), which meets the insulating film, and the electrode lead has a gas-venting through hole formed by punching the electrode lead so that the sealing film is penetrated ([0039], [0085] and Fig. 4, 6, 8 and 9), which meets the claimed gas release portion formed by removing the coating layer. As to the limitation “having a structure formed by surface-treatment with a non-adhesive material” and “wherein the non-adhesive material is coated on the coating layer, and is not adhered to the insulation film attached to the electrode lead", Yang’060 teaches the alternative embodiment of “by removing the coating layer” thus meets the claim.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insulation film ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as depending upon claim 1 but fail to correct the 112 issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yang.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10 and 11, Yang teaches an electrode lead made of copper coated with nickel ([0059]), which meets the claimed substrate and coating material, respectively, wherein both surfaces of the electrode lead are coated with a sealant material such as a polyimide film (34 and 35 in Fig. 2, [0020] and [0070]), which meets the claimed no-adhesive material and surface treatment.
Yang the first sealant 34 is disposed within the gap formed between the lead plates 31 and 32 (Fig. 2 and [0070]), which is not adhered to the second sealant 35, which can be made of a film of insulating properties([0070] and [0076]), thus Yang the non-adhesive material (i.e., sealant 34) is not adhered to the insulation film attached to the electrode lead (i.e., sealant 35).
Yang teaches that one of the sealant layers , i.e., the first sealant has a venting notch to discharge gas generated in the battery by releasing the sealing formed to a predetermined depth ([0027], [0071], [0087] and 34a of Figs 7-9), which meets the claimed gas release portion.
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the alternative material of polyimide thus meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches that the venting notch may have a round shape like a half circle (Fig. 8).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang’060.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 10, Yang’060 teaches an electrode lead made of nickel coated -copper ([0062]), which meets the claimed metal substrate and metal coating layer, wherein the electrode lead is coated with a sealing film of insulating property such as polyimide (Fig. 4, [0064] and [0085]), which meets the insulating film, and the electrode lead has a gas-venting through hole formed by punching the electrode lead so that the sealing film is penetrated ([0039], [0085] and Fig. 4, 6, 8 and 9), which meets the claimed gas release portion and totally or 100% removing the coating layer in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 7, Yang’060 teaches the alternative embodiment thus meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Yang’060 teaches that the gas-venting through hole has a rounded shape ([0076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
The teachings of Yang are set forth above.
Yang teaches that the vent sealant is formed to a predetermined depth/width to allow for easy release/melting when pressure increased while also allows the battery pouch case to be sealed ([0070], [0086], [0087] and 34a of Figs 3-9).
Yang does not expressly discloses the thickness of the vent sealant layer of claim 7, neither the relative area of the vent sealant to the total area of the electrode lead of claim 9 , however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness and area of the vent sealant coating relative to the area of the electrode lead in order to obtain a workable product, in the instant case, effective gas venting and sealing of the battery pouch case. Case law has held that :
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 1 and 5-11 above, and further in view of US 2003/0031919A1 (Isozaki).
The teachings of Yang are set forth above.
While teaching the electrode lead is made of copper coated with Ni ([0059]), Yang does not discloses the claimed thickness of the Ni coating.
Isozaki teaches a total Ni coating thickness of 4 to 6 μm of both side of a copper plate in a secondary battery is required to maintain corrosion resistance toward electrolyte and the safety of the battery while optimize the manufacturing cost ([0048]), i.e., each side with a coating thickness of 2 to 3 μm, which meets the claimed thickness.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize copper coated with 2 to 3 μm thickness of Ni of Isozaki as the electrode lead material of Yang . The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Isozaki that to do so would predictably provide corrosion resistance toward electrolyte and the safety of the battery ([0048]).
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 AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights