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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/18/26. The applicant has overcome the objections and the prior art rejections as set forth in the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendment has not yet satisfactorily overcome the 112 rejection. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims are being finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions and Claim Disposition
Claims 3, 5-6, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/25.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 21-22 are under examination; and claim 20 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/22/26 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 22 is still 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.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "pouch-type" still renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-10, 16, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2003-0066895 (heretofore KR’895) in view of the publication KR 10-1452945 (heretofore KR’945) and further in view of the publication JP 2003-242952 (herein JP’952).
As to claims 1, 4, 22:
KR’895 discloses that it is known in the art to make a pouch-shaped secondary battery comprising an electrode group/assembly 30 disposed/accommodated in a sheathing film housing/container 40 including a sheathing film having a sealing part (sealant) bonded by fusion and surrounding the electrode assembly; electrode leads/tabs 34-35 protruding from the housing/ container 40 and attached/joined to the electrode group/assembly including a coating/film 41 arranged between the leads/tabs and the housing; a vent/safety component 50 made of a linear-low density polyethylene-based synthetic resin film/coating having certain thickness and placed in a region of housing/case for venting/safety purposes (Abstract; see Claims 3, 7 & 10; page 2, paragraphs 0007, 00014; see Figures 1, 2a-b & 3-4). KR’895 also discloses the use of polyethyelene-co-acrylic acid (page 3, last paragraph)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
504
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7-10, 16:
In KR’895, the vent/safety component 50 is made of a linear-low density polyethylene-based synthetic resin and/or polyethyelene-co-acrylic acid (Abstract; see Claims 3, 7 & 10; page 2, paragraphs 0007, 00014; page 3, last paragraph). In this case, the specific maximum/average sealing strengths and melting point are deemed inherent properties/characteristics of the disclosed linear-low density polyethylene-based synthetic resin and/or polyethyelene-co-acrylic acid.
As to claim 18:
Figure 4, supra, depicts the vent/safety component 50 including a narrowed section, region, segment, portion and part along the direction of the electrode leads/tabs (see Figure 4).
As to claim 21:
In KR’895, sealing member 60 located at the corner of the housing/container can be also considered the vent region in a sealing portion thereof. Since the present claims fail to define the specific structure of the vent region (not the vent member), it is deemed that the teachings of KR’895 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed vent region.
KR’895 discloses a secondary battery according to the foregoing description. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific vent member thickness and the specific polyethylene-comonomer weight percent.
As to claims 1-2, 12:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, KR’945 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising, inter alia, sealing (vent) member/component made of a polymer-based material such as PE, PE/PP and PE/PMP (see Tables 1-2; Figure 2) having a thickness of 50 µm (0024) wherein the weight percent of the comonomer in the polyethylene material can be 5 wt % (Table 1: Example 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
474
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In light of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vent/safety component of KR’895 by having the specific thickness and the specific polyethylene-comonomer weight percent as taught by KR’945 because KR’945 teaches that the specifically disclosed sealing member-component enhances structural integrity and mechanical stability by providing improved sealing characteristics. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Additionally, none of the preceding reference expressly discloses the vent region being located in the sealing portion of the case.
In this respect, JP’952 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising a case/housing including a sealing portion/region/section including a vent region/part disposed in the sealing portion/region/section of the case/housing (Abstract; see Figures 1-2A & 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
248
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In light of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sealing portion of KR’895’s battery by having a vent region/section in the sealing portion as instantly claimed because JP’952 expressly teaches that the specifically disclosed vent region/section in the sealing portion assists in preventing explosion of the secondary battery. Further, it should be noted that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is prima-facie obvious (i.e., thus, it is prima-facie obvious to re-arrange and/or modify the location of the vent portion/part within the battery itself and/or the sealing region as instantly claimed), absent any significant evidence that the claimed arrangement of parts is critical. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Moreover, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2003-0066895 (heretofore KR’895) in view of the publication KR 10-1452945 (heretofore KR’945) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of the publication KR 10-2017-0007876 (heretofore KR’876).
KR’895 and KR’945 are both applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra.
However, the preceding prior art does not expressly disclose the specific crystallization temperature difference between the sealant resin and the polymer-based thermally adhesive resin.
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, KR’876 discloses that it is known in the art to make a pouch-shaped rechargeable battery comprising, inter alia, sealing member/component (i.e., applicant’s vent: venting unit) made of a polymer-based material disposed in the sealing region of the housing/container and a sealant layer including thermally adhesive resin and a venting unit made of an alloy having a lower melting point than a thermally adhesive resin (Abstract; see Figures 1-2, 5-6). In this case, the specific crystallization temperature difference between the sealant resin and the polymer-based thermally adhesive resin is deemed an inherent property/characteristic of the disclosed sealant layer material and the thermally adhesive resin as the venting unit is made of an alloy having a lower melting point than a thermally adhesive resin.
PNG
media_image7.png
500
640
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
698
520
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
666
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
500
576
media_image10.png
Greyscale
By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific sealant resin and polymer-based thermally adhesive resin of KR’876 as part of the sealing/venting member and/or in the sealing/venting region of KR’895 and KR’945 because KR’876 teaches that the specifically disclosed sealant resin and polymer-based thermally adhesive resin assists in improving the sealing characteristic of the battery cell, thereby preventing battery burst, reducing deformation of the battery case and improving life-span of the battery. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/18/26, with respect to the foregoing claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, and 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.
Although believed unnecessary due to the new grounds of rejection, the examiner likes to address certain arguments raised by the applicant.
With respect to applicant’s argument concerning the vent region in the sealing portion, it is worthwhile to note that the new ground of rejection directly and expressly addresses such limitation. In this regard, note that JP’952 discloses a battery comprising a case/housing including a sealing portion/region/section including a vent region/part disposed in the sealing portion/region/section of the case/housing (Abstract; see Figures 1-2A & 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
248
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that “the secondary reference KR’945” is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the teachings of KR’945 address the same problem and/or technical issue of providing a battery structural component with sufficient mechanical strength to be used within a battery regardless of its intended use. Applicant has not yet come forward with objective evidence to demonstrate that the feature of KR’945 causes or creates catastrophic or detrimental damages to the battery of KR’895 when the vent member of KR’895 is made by the specific material composition and dimensional characteristic (i.e., thickness) of KR’s 945 feature independently of its ultimately intended use. It is imperative to note that the teachings of KR’945 concerning the thickness and material composition (i.e., comonomer/monomer/polymer material) of the disclosed battery component is an express/direct teaching related to its thickness and material composition [sic]. Moreover, the examiner also asserts that it is not enough that applicant's representative personally believes that “KR’945 is nonanalogous art”. That is to say, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of inherent anticipation or obviousness (See MPEP 716.01 and 2145: Consideration of Applicant's Rebuttal Arguments). Put differently, a statement or argument by the attorney is not factual evidence. (See MPEP 716.01 and 2145 Consideration of Applicant's Rebuttal Arguments). In short, applicant 's position on that point rests entirely upon unsupported attorney argument. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1471 (argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence). Succinctly stated, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
In response to applicant's argument that “KR’945 limits the thickness of its microporous membrane to 9-50 µm, and expressly cautions that if the thickness exceeds 50 µm, the permeability is low, making it unsuitable for a secondary battery separator”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage or disadvantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It is imperative to note that the teachings of KR’945 concerning the thickness and material composition (i.e., comonomer/monomer/polymer material) of the disclosed battery component is an express/direct teaching related to its thickness and material composition [sic].
With respect to the 112 rejection, the phrase "pouch-type" still renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. As set forth in MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology, III Approximation: "Type" The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights