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 .
Response to Arguments
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0038126 hereinafter Gu in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0123844 hereinafter Bhardwaj and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0104527 hereinafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 1, Bhardwaj teaches a pouch type battery cell [100] (see figure 1) comprising: an electrode assembly [101] that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the electrodes; and a pouch casing that includes a lower case and an upper case configured to define a space portion for accommodating the electrode assembly (paragraph 23), wherein a rupture induction portion (weak regions [602] forming the safety vent) is provided in the space portion of the casing and configured to induce rupture of the pouch casing when pressure in the battery casing increases (see annotated figure 11 below, paragraphs 26-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches that the rupture is formed inside the battery enclosure (see figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Gu teaches that the rupture induction portion has a polygon (cubic) shape with a predetermined volume (paragraph 41).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the combination teaches that the rupture induction portion is made of a multi-layered material including a conductive material and nonconductive resin (paragraph 40 of Gu and paragraph 23 of Bhardwaj).
Regarding Claims 5-7, the combination teaches that the rupture induction portions are provided in plural between the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the lower (or upper) (see figure 6 Bhardwaj and description thereof).
Regarding Claims 8-11, the combination teaches that the electrode assembly is configured in a sequence of a negative electrode, a separator, and a positive electrode in an inward direction from an outermost side of the electrode assembly, and the rupture induction portion is located at the outermost side of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the cell case. The combination further teaches including multiple separators and electrode layers in the battery pack (paragraph 31 of Gu).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claim 12, Gu teaches a battery pack comprising the pouch type secondary battery (paragraphs 7-11).
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752