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 .
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 17, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Sonozaki et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a secondary battery ([0023]), comprising: an electrode assembly (ref 4); an electrode lead (ref 2a) attached to the electrode assembly (ref 4); a case (ref 1) configured to accommodate (Fig 2) the electrode assembly (ref 4) therein; a lead film (ref 3a) formed to surround ([0024], Fig 2) a part of an outer surface ([0024], Fig 2) of the electrode lead (ref 2a) and interposed between ([0024], Fig 2) the electrode lead (ref 2a) and the case (ref 1); a vent region ([0024], Fig 2) formed in at least a part (Fig 2) of the case (ref 1); and a vent member (ref 5) inserted into ([0024]) the vent region ([0024], Fig 2) and having a structure of three or more layers ([0023], refs 1a, b, c), wherein the vent member (ref 5) contains polyethylene in an outermost layer (ref 1c) and a resin (ref 1b, [0023]) having a higher melting point ([0023]) between (ref 1b, [0023]) the outermost layers (ref 1c).
Sonozaki et al. does not explicitly disclose the vent member contains a linear low-density contains a resin having a higher melting point than the linear low-density polyethylene in between the outermost layers, or the outermost layers contain a linear low-density polyethylene.
Gu discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery (Abstract) including a safety unit (ref 50) comprising low density polyethylene materials ([0030]-[0031]). The low density polyethylene material has a multi-layered structure ([0031]) including a middle portion having a lower melting temperature than outermost layers ([0031]). This configuration enhances overall performance of the safety unit ([0030]-[0031]).
Gu and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery safety members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the low density polyethylene material configuration of Gu into the low density polyethylene material of the vent of Sonozaki et al. to enhance overall safety performance of the battery.
Sonozaki et al. also does not explicitly disclose the low density polyethylene material ha a comonomer with a carbon number of 6-8.
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery (Abstract) including a polymer film material comprising low density polyethylene with comonomer having carbon number of 3-10 ([0292]). This enhances the physical properties and performance of the polyethylene material ([0291]-[0292]).
Yamamoto et al. and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polyethylene materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the material disclosed by Yamamoto et al. into the polyethylene material of Sonozaki et aol to enhance the physical properties and performance of the polyethylene material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a vent occurs between ([0023]-[0024]) the case (ref 1) and the outermost layer (ref 1a).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the resin having a higher melting point than the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a melting point between 120C and 140C ([0027], Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a melting point of between 100°C and 120°C ([0027], Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the resin having a higher melting point than the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more includes a high-density polyethylene ([0013]), random polypropylene ([0013]), or a mixture thereof ([0013]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the case (ref 1) includes a sealing portion (ref 7a) formed to seal (Fig 2) the electrode assembly (ref 4), the sealing portion (ref 7a) contains a sealant resin ([0023]-[0024]), and the linear low-density polyethylene of the vent member (ref 5) having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a lower melting point than the sealant resin ([0023]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the vent member melts (ref 5) at 100C to 120°C ([0024]) to vent a gas ([0024]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the vent member (ref 5) has a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm at 100C or above ([0024], [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the vent member (ref 5) has an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm at 100C or above ([0024], [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin and a crystallization temperature of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 100C or less ([0023]-[0026], the resin for the sealant and LDPE may be the same material, thus meeting the aforementioned claim limitations).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the vent region ([0024], Fig 2) is located in the sealing portion (ref 7a) at a corner (Fig 2, at corner edge of top surface and side surface) of the case (ref 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery ([0025], [0028]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0333300).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the vent member (ref 5) has a maximum sealing strength of 6 kgf/15 mm or more or an average sealing strength of 4.5 kgf/15 mm or more at room temperature to 60°C ([0024], [0026]).
Kim discloses a battery (ref 100) having a vent (ref 154) having a sealing strength of 8 kgf/cm2 ([0047]). This configuration enhances the performance and structural integrity of the vent ([0047]).
Kim and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the vent of Sonozaki et al. as having the strength of Kim to enhance performance and structural integrity of the battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iidani et al. (US 2009/0186280).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose 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.
Iidani et al. discloses a polymer film ([0037]) for a battery ([0038]) comprising polyethylene polymerized via metallocene catalyst ([0055]). This enhances performance of the polymer film ([0055]).
Sonozaki et al. and Iidani et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polymer film materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyethylene disclosed by Sonozaki et al. as polymerized via metallocene catalyst to enhance overall performance of the polymer film.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2007/0072069).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose in the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more, a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 15 weight% or less, based on 100 weight% of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more.
Yamada et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery ([0002]) including a low density polyethylene material therein having a weight percent of less than 20% ([0052]). This enhances the physical properties of the polyethylene material ([0052]).
Yamada et al. and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polyethylene materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyethylene material of Sonozaki et al. as having the low density polyethylene material weight percent of Yamada et al. to enhance physical properties of the polyethylene material, thereby enhancing overall battery performance.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0080011).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of 4 or less.
Kim et al. discloses in Figs 1-12, a battery (Title) including a polyethylene material having a polydispersity index of 1 ([0099]). This configuration enhances uniformity and order of the polymer material ([0099]).
Kim et al. and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polyethylene materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyethylene material of Sonozaki et al. as having the PDI of Kim et al. to enhance structural properties of the polyethylene material, thereby enhancing overall battery performance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itou et al. (US 2014/0159271).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a crystallization temperature of 90°C to 115°C.
Itou et al. discloses a battery ([0001]) including a polyethylene film material (Abstract) including a polyethylene material having a crystallization temperature of 105 C (P5-6, Table 1). This configuration enhances the physical properties (flexibility) of the polyethylene material ([0008]-[0009]).
Itou et al. and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polyethylene materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyethylene material of Sonozaki et al. as having the crystallization temperature of Itou et al. to enhance physical properties of the polyethylene material, thereby enhancing overall battery performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al. (JP 2001/383800, see Machine Translation) in view of Gu (US 2003/0148173) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2011/0159346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takita et al. (JP 2001/072788, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sonozaki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol to 400,000 g/mol.
Takita et al. discloses a battery comprising a polymer film material including low density polyethylene ([0012]) having a weight avg molecular weight between 10K – 500K g/mol ([0010]-[0011]). This material configuration enhances the polymer film properties and thus overall performance ([0010]-[0012]).
Takita et al. and Sonozaki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, polymer film materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polymer material disclosed by Takita et al. into the material of Sonozaki et al. to enhance polymer film properties and thus overall battery performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725