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 with traverse of Group I drawn to claims 1-18, Species A-6 drawn to Fig. 4, Species B1, and Species C2 also drawn to claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A-6 is only one of many shapes that the gas discharging unit may take. This is not found persuasive because while alternate shapes are possible as noted in the specification, they would require different searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, Species A1/A2/A3/A4/A5, B2, and C1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
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.
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) 1-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 12, An discloses a battery cell, comprising (See Figs. 1-7, 10 and 30):
a battery case (30) having an accommodation portion (inner portion 31 and 31a, see Fig. 1, see pgs. 1-7) in which an electrode assembly (14/15 and 20) is mounted, and a sealing portion (40 see pg. 3) formed by sealing an outer periphery thereof;
an electrode lead (14 and 15, see pg. 3) electrically connected to an electrode tab (20, see pg. 3) included in the electrode assembly and protruding out of the battery case via the sealing portion; and
a lead film (60, see last paragraph pg. 3-first paragraph pg.4) located at a portion corresponding to the sealing portion in at least one of an upper portion and a lower portion of the electrode lead (14 and 15, see pg. 3),
An discloses a gas discharge guiding unit (50/51/52, see pg. 4) is inserted in the lead film (60) (see annotated Figure below for an example).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, An does not disclose that the lead film includes a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion.
Toshio discloses a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the
electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion that includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion as shown below in the annotated Fig. 5.
Toshio discloses that forming of the lead and sealing layer with notched portions leads to the sealing properties of these layers are improved due to filling of voids around electrode leads (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lead film of An by including a first stepped portion in the lead film and to further include a add a sealing layer surrounding the lead film with a second stepped portion as disclosed by Toshio by including these layers with notched portions to better seal the electrodes.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification above with Toshio will result in modified An having a gas discharge unit in the first stepped portion, since the gas discharge unit of An is centered above electrode lead.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
An discloses that the amount of lead film is unequal on the top versus bottom side of the lead (see Fig. 5 annotated above of An) and that the gas discharge guiding unit (50/51/52, see pg. 4) is embedded within the lead film (60) in the thicker top part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of the invention to modify the positioning of the lead so that the first stepped portion only includes the gas discharging unit because An discloses that the lead can be positioned such that there unequal portions of the lead film on the top versus the bottom of the lead film with the thicker part step portion accommodating the gas discharge unit because An discloses it is appropriate to do so.
Regarding claim 5, modified An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein the gas discharge guiding unit extends along a protruding direction of the electrode lead, and an end of the gas discharge guiding unit adjacent to an outer side of the battery case is surrounded with the lead film (See annotated Figure of An below).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6-8, modified An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, An does not disclose wherein an end of the gas discharge guiding unit adjacent to an inner side of the battery case is exposed inside the battery case.
An discloses that the gas discharge guiding unit can be placed in different positions with respect to the lead film (see pg. 4, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the gas discharge guiding unit arrangement so that it is adjacent to an inner side of the battery case is exposed inside the battery case because An discloses that the gas discharge guiding unit can be placed in different positions with respect to the lead film.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
This modification will result in a gas discharge path formed at an interface between the gas discharge guiding unit and the lead film and exposed to the inside the battery case and wherein an adhesive force between the gas discharge guiding unit (lower melting temperature than lead film) and the lead film is smaller than an adhesive force between the lead film and the electrode lead (see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 10, modified An discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regards to “the gas discharge guiding unit is a coating layer made of liquid resin” is considered is/are considered product-by-process claim limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12 above and in further view of Lee (US 20190198827 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified An discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
An discloses that the gas discharging unit is made of a film that deforms (see pg. 4).
However, An does not disclose that the gas discharging unit is a film layer made of polyethylene terephthalate.
Lee discloses a polyethylene terephthalate film which allows gasses to vent from a battery cell due to breakage of the film the above a predetermined pressure and/or temperature range ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to material of forming the gas discharging unit of modified An by forming it of the polyethylene terephthalate film as disclosed by Lee because it performs the same function as desired by An namely breakage of the film the above a predetermined pressure and/or temperature range.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12 above and in further view of Lee (US 20190198827 A1) and in further view of Hayashi (US 20240145857 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
An does not disclose silica in the gas discharge layer.
An discloses that the gas discharging unit is made of a film that deforms (see pg. 4).
Lee discloses a polyethylene terephthalate film which allows gasses to vent from a battery cell due to breakage of the film the above a predetermined pressure and/or temperature range ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to material of forming the gas discharging unit of An by forming it of the polyethylene terephthalate film as disclosed by Lee because it performs the same function as desired by An namely breakage of the film the above a predetermined pressure and/or temperature range.
Hayashi discloses gas discharge layers (12a and 12b) formed of a polymeric resin which contains as silica filler which aids to inhibit short circuiting between conductive components and case ([0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the resin of modified An to include a filler of silica as disclosed by Hayashi because Hayashi discloses that this aids to inhibit short circuiting between conductive components and case.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12 above and in further view of Yan (WO 2021196000 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, An does not disclose an adhesive layer between a gas discharging unit and the electrode lead.
Yan discloses (See Fig. 3C) an adhesive layer (103/104) is formed between the gas discharge guiding unit (A’ or A) and the electrode lead (101) (see pg. 5 last paragraph -pg. 6) and discloses wherein an adhesive force between the gas discharge guiding unit and the lead film is smaller than at least one of an adhesive force between the adhesive layer and the gas discharge guiding unit (see opening 100 which forms between adhesive layer and discharge unit) and the adhesive is formed of a tape or binder (see last two paragraphs pg. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an additional adhesive layer between the gas discharging unit and the electrode lead of An as disclosed by Yan because it is an effective structure to release overpressure in a battery cell which is an endeavor of both An and Yan.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12 above and in further view of Koroda (JP 2005038707, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 16-18, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, An does not disclose:
wherein the lead film has gas permeability of between 20 Barrer and 60 Barrer at 60°C
wherein the lead film has a moisture penetration amount of between 0.02 g and 0.2 g for 10 years at 25°C, 50 %RH
wherein the gas discharge guiding unit has gas permeability of 40 Barrer or more at 60°C
An discloses that the lead film is formed of a polymeric film (see pg. 3 last paragraph) and furthermore the gas discharge film (50) is directly on the electrical connector.
Koroda discloses that moisture penetration, gas permeability, adhesion of a polymer film used as a lead film can be adjusted based on the composition and amount of filler (See Technical Solution pg. 2 and pg. 5, Examples and Comparative Example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the composition of the film forming the gas discharge member/lead film of An to have the above claimed properties because Koroda discloses that one would want to modify the composition to have the composition because it will improve film adhesiveness and also durability of the lead due to moisture/gas penetration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-21 of copending Application No. 18/036,531 in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation).
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 of copending Application No. 18/036,531 recites a substantially similar structure for a battery cell with the exception of the lead film includes a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion.
Toshio discloses a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the
electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion that includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion as shown below in the annotated Fig. 5.
Toshio discloses that forming of the lead and sealing layer with notched portions the sealing properties of these layers are improved due to filling of voids around electrode leads (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lead film of claims 1-3 and 5-21 of copending Application No. 18/036,531 by including a first stepped portion and to further include a second stepped portion the sealing layer surrounding the lead film as disclosed by Toshio because as disclosed by Toshio by including these layers with notched portions there is a better seal of the electrodes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/266,703 in view of Toshio (JP 2010244725 A, Machine Translation).
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/266,703 recites a substantially similar structure for a battery cell with the exception of the lead film includes a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion.
Toshio discloses a first stepped portion protruding in a direction opposite to the
electrode lead and a sealing film with a sealing portion that includes a second stepped portion surrounding an outer surface of the first stepped portion as shown below in the annotated Fig. 5.
Toshio discloses that forming of the lead and sealing layer with notched portions the sealing properties of these layers are improved due to filling of voids around electrode leads (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lead film of claims 1-18 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/266,703 by including a first stepped portion and to further include a second stepped portion the sealing layer surrounding the lead film as disclosed by Toshio because as disclosed by Toshio by including these layers with notched portions there is a better seal of the electrodes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726