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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 and 12/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. IDS statements of previous office actions have already been considered.
Claim Status
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 7, 11, 15, 18-20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2003/0148173 A1) in view of Yan (CN 211828842 U-as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Gu discloses a secondary battery, comprising:
An electrode assembly (Figure 1; electrode assembly 30);
An electrode lead attached to the electrode assembly (Tabs 34/35);
A case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly therein (laminated container 40);
A lead film surrounding a part of an outer surface of the electrode lead and interposed between the electrode lead and the case (Figures 1-3; sealing member 60, [0032]);
A vent region, the vent region being defined by at least a part of the case (figure 3; [0015]; safety tape 50 designed to melt to release gas, [0030]) and
A vent member being disposed in the vent region, the vent member having a structure comprising three or more layers including a first resin in a lowermost layer, a second resin in an upper most layer, and a third resin in a middle layer (Figures 1-3; tape 50 can be formed of three layers [0031] wherein a linear low density polyethylene layer can be interposed between two polypropylene layers).
Gu discloses wherein the melting point of the tape materials vary and are designed to melt before the laminated container ([0033]). Gu discloses a preferred embodiment wherein the middle layer has the lowest melting point and thus melts first and discloses wherein it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the spirt and scope of the present invention, however, Gu is designed such that at least one layer of the tape melts before the laminated container and thus is silent with respect to the relative melting points of the first, second and third resin layers.
Yan discloses a battery cell related to safety systems for the battery when the battery is at high temperatures and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Yan discloses a first adhesive layer 103 that is provided between the top and bottom packaging film and discloses wherein the adhesive layer can be a three layer structure having a first layer 1031 with the melting point of 100-170 °C, a second layer 1032 having a melting point of 105-145 °C, and a third layer 1033 with a melting point of 200-300°C such that the first layer and or second layer will rupture when high temperatures and/or pressure occurs ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the tape of Gu to incorporate the teaching of Yan such that the tape of Gu has a tri-layered structure wherein the first layer and has a lower melting point than the second layer and a third middle layer has a higher melting temperature than the second layer as taught by Yan as a simple rearrangement of the tape taught by Yan. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1 as Yan discloses a tri-layer all having different melting temperatures that is designed for venting a battery and is analogous with the disclosure of Gu and thus through the combination the first layer can be made of a material having the lowest melting temperature, the second layer having a slightly higher melting temperature and the third layer having the highest melting temperature. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Gu further discloses wherein the tape is designed to melt earlier than the laminated container and thus through the combination a vent is configured to be formed between the middle layer and the lowermost layer as the lowermost layer is the layer having the lowest melting point and thus would melt to vent before the other layers or the laminated container (Gu [0033], see modification of claim 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses wherein a low density polyethylene has a melting point of 90-120 C and a crystallization temperature of 80-90 C ([0030] melting temperature of 90-120 C would then cause crystallization to form below the melting temperature and thus would read on the claim limitation of the crystallization temperature) and thus through the combination of claim 1 the low density polyethylene can be the first layer having the first melting temperature. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Gu further discloses wherein the second resin has a melting point of 100 -130 C and thus a crystallization temperature can be between 90-115 C (90-180 C; [0030] see modification of claim 1 as the second resin can be the same or similar material as the first or can be a polypropylene material; the crystallization temperature is a temperature at which is less than the melting temperature and thus the crystallization temperature is taught with the teaching of the melting temperature). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses wherein the third resin has a melting point of higher than 130 C (see modification of claim 1, third layer can have a melting point of 100-180 C [0030] made of polypropylene).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Modified Gu further discloses wherein the third resin includes a random polypropylene (see modification of claim 1; [0030] the highest melting temperature layer can be made of polypropylene).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses wherein the vent member is configured to melt at 100 C or above to vent gas ([0030-0032] tape is designed to melt between 60-120 C to release gas).
Regarding claim 28, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses wherein the secondary battery is a pouch type secondary battery (Figure 1).
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2003/0148173 A1) in view of Yan (CN 211828842 U-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0053527 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses a low density polyethylene having a melting point of 90-120 C ([0030]). Thus through the combination of claim 1, a lower density polyethylene can be used for the first layer which contains the lowest melting point of the tape. Modified Gu fails to mention wherein the polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 8.
Lee discloses a copolymer and comonomer that can be realized as low melting polymer material and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to low melting polymer materials. Lee discloses where a comonomer can be added through a metallocene catalysts such as to polyethylene in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristic of the polymer compound ([0002-0004]) such as the melting point and wherein the comonomer can be comprises of 1-20 carbon atoms ([0028-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the disclosure of Lee such that a comonomer is added to the low density polyethylene of Gu such as comprising 1-20 carbon atoms in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristics of the copolymer such as the melting point as taught by Lee. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Gu is silent with respect to the PDI of the first resin.
Lee discloses a copolymer and comonomer that can be realized as low melting polymer material and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to low melting polymer materials. Lee discloses where a comonomer can be added through a metallocene catalysts such as to polyethylene in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristic of the polymer compound ([0002-0004]) such as the melting point and wherein the comonomer can be comprises of 1-20 carbon atoms ([0028-0035]). Lee further teaching wherein a molecular weight distribution of the copolymer Mw/Mn is 3.5 or less and such as 2.0-3.5 ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the disclosure of Lee such that a comonomer is added to the low density polyethylene of Gu such as comprising 1-20 carbon atoms and at a ratio of Mw/Mn of 305 or less so 2.0-3.5 as taught by Lee in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristics of the copolymer such as the melting point as taught by Lee. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 5 as Mw/Mn is the same as a poly dispersity index as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Lee further discloses wherein a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 8 is 12 weight% or more, based on 100 weight % of the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 8 ([0041] octene copolymer is provided in a range of 2-20 mol% and would overlap with the weight percentage as claimed). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Lee further discloses wherein the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 8 is polymerized in the presence of a metallocene catalyst ([0029]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Gu further discloses wherein the case includes a sealing portion to seal the electrode assembly (Figure 1; binding portion 41/43), the sealing portion containing a sealant resin ([0029]; [0032] resin can be used to seal),
The linear low density polyethylene of the vent member having a comonomer with a carbon number of 8 having a lower melting point than the sealant resin ([0035-0037] tape melts earlier than the laminated container, see modification of claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Gu further discloses a low density polyethylene having a melting point of 90-120 C ([0030]). Thus through the combination of claim 1, a lower density polyethylene can be used for the second layer which contains the second lowest melting point of the tape. Modified Gu fails to mention wherein the polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more.
Lee discloses a copolymer and comonomer that can be realized as low melting polymer material and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to low melting polymer materials. Lee discloses where a comonomer can be added through a metallocene catalysts such as to polyethylene in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristic of the polymer compound ([0002-0004]) such as the melting point and wherein the comonomer can be comprises of 1-20 carbon atoms ([0028-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the disclosure of Lee such that a comonomer is added to the second resin layer of low density polyethylene of Gu such as comprising 1-20 carbon atoms in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristics of the copolymer such as the melting point as taught by Lee. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 12. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Gu is silent with respect to the PDI of the second resin.
Lee discloses a copolymer and comonomer that can be realized as low melting polymer material and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to low melting polymer materials. Lee discloses where a comonomer can be added through a metallocene catalysts such as to polyethylene in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristic of the polymer compound ([0002-0004]) such as the melting point and wherein the comonomer can be comprises of 1-20 carbon atoms ([0028-0035]). Lee further teaching wherein a molecular weight distribution of the copolymer Mw/Mn is 3.5 or less and such as 2.0-3.5 ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the disclosure of Lee such that a comonomer is added to the second resin of the low density polyethylene of Gu such as comprising 1-20 carbon atoms and at a ratio of Mw/Mn of 305 or less so 2.0-3.5 as taught by Lee in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristics of the copolymer such as the melting point as taught by Lee. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 13 as Mw/Mn is the same as a poly dispersity index as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses wherein a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 12 weight% or less, based on 100 weight % of the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more ([0041] octene copolymer is provided in a range of 2-20 mol% and would overlap with the weight percentage as claimed). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses wherein the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is polymerized in the presence of a metallocene catalyst ([0029]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Gu further discloses wherein the vent region is located in the sealing portion (Figure 3; tape 50).
Regarding claim 27, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 26. Gu further discloses wherein the vent region is located in the sealing portion (Figure 3; tape 50), however, is silent with respect to wherein the vent region is located in the corner of the case. It would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the tape 50 of Gu to a corner of the case such that the vent region is provided at a corner of the case as a simple rearrangement of the tape 50 of Gu. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2003/0148173 A1) in view of Yan (CN 211828842 U-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimaru et al. (US 2019/0252658 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitation of claim 1. Modified Gu discloses the use of a polyethylene polymer for the venting member, however, is silent with respect to the weight average molecular weight.
Yoshimaru discloses a secondary battery having a secondary battery with a polyethylene based polymer wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,000,000 or higher and enables the shutdown function to be realized as a lower temperature thereby providing high safety to the secondary battery ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the polyethylene based polymer of Gu have a weight average molecular weight between 100,000 -1,000,000 as taught by Yoshimaru to enhance the safety of the battery and to explicitly disclose a polyethylene material having the molecular weight as claimed. The resulting modification can modify the first and second resin materials to have the molecular weight within the range disclosed by Yoshimaru and thus renders obvious all the claim limitations of claims 8 and 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2003/0148173 A1) in view of Yan (CN 211828842 U-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0198109 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 20. Gu is silent with respect to the pressure at which the vent member is vented, however, this is rendered obvious with the disclosure of Kim.
Kim discloses a pouch type battery cell having a venting mechanism and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Kim discloses wherein a vent member is formed in the battery cell and when the pressure in the battery cell is 3 atm the vent is broken to release gas ([0097]) to avoid ignition and explosion of the battery cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Kim such that the tape of Gu has a pressure threshold such as 3 atm such that when the pressure exceeds the threshold the tape ruptures to vent out the high pressure gases to avoid ignition and explosion of the battery cell. The resulting modification can increase the safety of the battery cell by preventing explosions or ignition of the battery cell by breaking the seal of the tape to release high pressure gases.
Claim 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2003/0148173 A1) in view of Yan (CN 211828842 U-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0207171 A1).
Regarding claims 22-25, modified Gu discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Gu is silent with respect to the sealing strengths of the vent members, however, the sealing strengths of the vent member can be adjusted by a skilled artisan to achieve the desired sealing effect that ruptures to release the gases. These limitations are rendered obvious in view of Choi.
Choi discloses a secondary battery having a pouch casing and a method of sealing the pouch casing. Choi discloses wherein the sealing strength of the pouch can be between 9.3 kgf/ 15 mm or lower such as 2.9 kgf/15 mm sealing strength ([0081-0084]) and that a lower sealing strength can mean a rupture of the pouch casing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the sealing strength of the venting member as taught by Choi such that the sealing strengths of the venting member can be between 2.9-9.3 kgf/15mm as the venting member is designed to rupture to release gases from the battery casing. Thus the modification would render obvious the average sealing strengths and maximum sealing strengths of the venting member at the different temperatures as a skilled artisan can adjust the venting member sealing strength to obtain a venting function as certain temperature and pressures. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejection of record, specifically Gu expressly teaches away from the claimed invention as it is “preferable that a middle portion of the tape 50 have a lower melting point than an upper surface portion and a lower surface portion of the tape 50.” Additionally that the rearrangement of parts is inapplicable as changing the melting point hierarchy fundamentally changes how the vent member operates as Yan discloses an adhesive and not a venting member.
While Gu’s preferred embodiment is the middle region having a lower melting point, the preferred embodiment and Gu does not teach away from the modification as there is nothing in Gu that teaches away from the modification of having different melting point region at a lower or upper region of the sealing region. Gu discloses in [0038] that while what was described is with reference to preferred embodiments, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Thus Gu leads into the embodiments of rearranging the layers of the tape. Yan is used in the rejection to disclose an adhesive member that has a three layered structure in which the different layers have different melting points in order for the layer/layers to melt/rupture to release pressure and gases and acts as a vent. Thus the arguments related to Gu and Yan and the combination is not found to be persuasive as the combination discloses and renders obvious the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (KR 20170103236 A)- discloses a pouch exterior material for an electrochemical device having a gas discharge part to discharge an internal gas when a pouch expands due to gas generation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728