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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, 6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2016/0028068A1(Yang), which is listed in Applicant’s information statement.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2014/0011060A1 (Yang’060), which is listed in Applicant’s information statement.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 10, Yang’060 teaches an electrode lead made of copper ([0062]), which meets the claimed metal substrate, wherein the electrode lead is coated with a sealing film (Fig. 4, [0064] and [0085]), which meets a coating layer, 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
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 7 and 9 are 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 is 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
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