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 filed May 08, 2023 does not include submission of the documents KR102252357B1 (publication date 2021-05-14) and KR102169373B1 (publication date 2020-10-23). The Examiner notes two documents that were submitted with the IDS filing of May 08, 2023 and not listed on the IDS form ; these are machine translations of KR20180106407A (published 2018-10-01) and KR20180085456A (published 2018-07-27) , and these two documents have been considered. Priority The E xaminer acknowledges Applicant’s claim to foreign priority document KR10-2021-0049399 , with a filing date of 04/15/2021. However, it is unclear as to whether the 35 U.S.C. 119 (a-d) conditions have been met. Because one cannot determine based on a comparison of the drawings in each document as to whether the priority document is directed to the instant application, a translation is requested. Summary This is an initial Office Action in response to application 18 / 035 , 794 filed 05/08/2023. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-24 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “mm” is missing after “6 kgf/15” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required. 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 . Claim s 1 , 7, 10-12, 14, 16- 1 8 , 22, 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 , 11-17, 20-28 of copending Application No. 18/029,270 (hereafter referred to as ‘270) in view of Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1 , submitted in IDS of 05/08/2023 ). Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, c laim 1 of the copending application ‘270 teaches a secondary battery, comprising an electrode assembly, an electrode lead attached to the electrode assembly, a case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly therein, a lead film surrounding a part of an outer surface of the electrode lead and interposed between the electrode lead and the case, and a vent region that is defined by at least a part of the case, and a vent member being disposed in the vent region. Application ‘270 does not teach the case contains a sealant layer but Gu in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the case contains a sealant layer (sealing portion 45; [0029]; Figs. 1 and 4), and a thermal conductive layer is included in the sealant layer (sealing portion 45 is formed by fusing the first and second binding portions 41 and 43 to melt earlier than the laminated container 40; therefore, sealing portion 45 is thermally fusible, i.e. thermally conductive [0029], [0033]). Gu teaches this configuration allows discharge of internal gases to the outside, thereby preventing explosion of the laminated container [0034]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the sealant layer taught by Gu into the secondary battery of Application ‘270 for the safety advantages of discharging internal gases to the outside and preventing explosion of the case. Regarding claims 7, 10-12, 14, 16- 1 8 , 2 2, 24 of the instant application : Instant application Co-pending application ‘270 Claim 7 recites w herein the case includes a sealing portion formed to seal the electrode assembly and the vent member is located in the sealing portion . See claim 26. Claim 10 recites wherein the vent member is vented at a temperature between 100 and 120°C. Claim 20 recites wherein the vent member is configured to melt at 100°C or above to vent a gas, which results in an overlapping range that provides a prima facie case of obviousness. Claim 11 recites wherein the vent member is vented at a pressure of 1.5 atm or above. See claim 21. Claim 12 recites wherein the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm at 100°C or above. See claims 22-23. Claim 14 recites wherein the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of equal to or greater than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength of equal to or greater than 4.5 kgf/15 mm between room temperature and 60°C. See claims 24-25. Claim 16 recites wherein the vent member contains a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. Claim 1 recites that the vent member has a structure of three or more layers that includes a second resin. Claim 12 which depends on claim 1 which recites the second resin is a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and recites 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. See claim 17, which depends on claim 12. Claim 18 depends on claim 16 and recites wherein 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. See claim 14, which depends on claim 12, and recites an overlapping range that provides a prima facie case of obviousness. Claim 22 recites wherein the vent member has a melting point of between 100°C and 130°C. See claim 11. Claim 24 recites wherein the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery. See claim 28. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1 , 10-12, 14, 16-19, 20-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-17, 20-28 of copending Application No. 18 / 029 , 850 (hereafter referred to as ‘ 85 0) in view of Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1 , submitted in IDS of 05/08/2023 ). Regarding claim 1 of the instant application , claim 1 of the copending application ‘850 teaches a secondary battery, comprising an electrode assembly, an electrode lead attached to the electrode assembly, a case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly therein, a lead film surrounding a part of an outer surface of the electrode lead and interposed between the electrode lead and the case, and a vent region formed in at least a part of the case, and a vent member inserted into the vent region. Claim 1 of the copending application also teaches the vent member contains a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. Application ‘850 does not teach the case contains a sealant layer but Gu in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the case contains a sealant layer (sealing portion 45; [0029]; Figs. 1 and 4), and a thermal conductive layer is included in the sealant layer (sealing portion 45 is formed by fusing the first and second binding portions 41 and 43 to melt earlier than the laminated container 40; therefore, sealing portion 45 is thermally fusible, i.e. thermally conductive [0029], [0033]). Gu teaches this configuration allows discharge of internal gases to the outside, thereby preventing explosion of the laminated container [0034]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the sealant layer taught by Gu into the secondary battery of Application ‘850 for the safety advantages of discharging internal gases to the outside and preventing explosion of the case. Regarding claims 10-12, 14, 16-1 9 , 2 0 -24 of the instant application : Instant application Co-pending application ‘850 Claim 10 recites wherein the vent member is vented at a temperature between 100 and 120°C. See claim 8. Claim 11 recites wherein the vent member is vented at a pressure of 1.5 atm or above. See c laim 8 . Claim 12 recites wherein the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm at 100°C or above. See claims 10 - 11 . Claim 14 recites wherein the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of equal to or greater than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength of equal to or greater than 4.5 kgf/15 mm between room temperature and 60°C. See claims 12-13 . Claim 16 recites wherein the vent member contains a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. See claim 1. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and recites 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. See claim 14. Claim 18 depends on claim 16 and recites wherein 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. See claim 15. Claim 19 depends on claim 16 and recites wherein 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. See claim 16. Claim 20 depends on claim 16 and recites wherein the case includes a sealing portion formed to seal the electrode assembly, the sealing portion contains a sealant resin, and a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin and a crystallization of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 10°C or less. See claim 17. Claim 21 recites wherein 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. See claim 18. Claim 22 recites wherein the vent member has a melting point of between 100°C and 130°C. See claim 4. Claim 23 depends on claim 16 and recites wherein 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. See claim 19. Claim 24 recites wherein the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery. See claim 2 2. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-2, 7, 9 , 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1 , submitted in IDS of 05/08/2023 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Gu teaches a secondary battery, comprising: An electrode assembly (Fig. 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 formed to surround a part of an outer surface of the electrode lead and interposed between the electrode lead and the case; (sealing member 60; [0032]) and A vent member (safety tape 50 which melts and discharges internal gases to the outside; [0034]), wherein the case contains a sealant layer (sealing portion 45 ; [0029]; Figs. 1 and 4 ), and a thermal conductive layer is included in the sealant layer ( sealing portion 45 is formed by fusing the first and second binding portions 41 and 43 to melt earlier than the laminated container 40 ; first and second binding portions 41 and 43 are thermally fused at an inner surface, and that thermally fused inner surface is thermally conductive and reads on a thermal conductive layer in the sealant layer [0029], [0033]) . Regarding claim 2 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, and Gu further shows in Fig. 1 that first and second binding portions 41 and 43, which form sealing portion 45 ( i.e. , sealant layer) and which are thermally fusible, are fused at an inner surface , i.e. core, of the sealant layer , indicating that the thermal conductive layer is located in a core of the sealant layer. Regarding claim 7 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, and Gu further teaches wherein the case includes a sealing portion (first and second binding portions 41/43) formed to seal the electrode assembly (electrode assembly 30) (Gu describes that when the first binding portion and second binding portion are fused together, the electrode assembly is sealed [0029]). Gu also teaches that the vent member (safety tape 50) is located in the sealing portion (safety tape 50 is shown to be between binding portions 41/43 in Fig. 4 and are therefore located in the sealing portion) . Regarding claim 9, Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 7 , and Gu further teaches wherein the sealing portion contains a sealant resin (Gu discloses the laminated container 40 which includes the binding portions 41/43 is made of resin [0028] and also discloses the binding portions are thermally fused to seal [0029]; therefore, Gu teaches a sealant resin). Gu also teaches the vent member has a lower melting point than the sealant resin (upper/lower surface portions of tape 50 are fused to first/second binding portions 41/43 while the middle portion of tape 50 melts, thereby indicating it has a lower melting point than the sealant resin [0030], [0035]) . Regarding claim 24 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 , and Gu further discloses the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery (Fig. 1 shows a pouch-shaped enclosure for receiving the electrode assembly 30 and the laminated container 40 is formed of a flexible material [0028]) . Claims 1 -2, 7, 9-1 0 , 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al (JP 2001283800 A, published 2001-10-12) . Regarding claim 1, Sonozaki teaches a secondary battery, comprising: An electrode assembly (Fig. 2, power generation element 4); An electrode lead attached to the electrode assembly (current collection terminals 2a/2b); A case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly therein (aluminum laminate casing 1 with storage space 6); A lead film formed to surround a part of an outer surface of the electrode lead and interposed between the electrode lead and the case; (welding resin 3a/3b wound around current collection terminals) and A vent member (gas vent 5), wherein the case contains a sealant layer (sealed portions 7a/7b; [0023]), and a thermal conductive layer is included in the sealant layer (sealing portions are heat-sealed and therefore thermally fusible, i.e. thermally conductive [002 3 ]). Regarding claim 2, Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and also teaches the thermal conductive layer is located in a core of the sealant layer (sealed portions 7a/7b are formed from the heat-sealing of inner resin layers 1c, which would be located in the inner, i.e. core, region of the sealant layer [0026] para 9). Regarding claim 7, Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, and Sonozaki further teaches wherein the case includes a sealant portion (region of the inner resin layers 1c of the aluminum laminate material which are heat sealed [0023]) formed to seal the electrode assembly (the battery is sealed by heat sealing inner resin layers 1c [0023]), and the vent member is located in the sealing portion (gas vent valve 5 is heat-welded to the inner resin layer 1c and is therefore located in the sealing portion [0024]). Regarding claim 9, Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, and Sonozaki further discloses wherein the sealing portion contains a sealant resin (inner resin layer 1c has a sealing function and is disclosed as being made of polypropylene with melting point 150°C [0023]), and the vent member has a lower melting point than the sealant resin (the gas venting valve 5 is made of modified polyethylene with melting point 120°C and its melting point is lower than that of the inner layer 1c [0024]). Regarding claims 10 and 22, Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1. Sonozaki discloses the gas venting valve 5 (i.e., vent member) is melted to vent gases [0006] and at a temperature exceeding 80°C ([0010]) for the reason that if the melting point of the gas vent valve is below 80°C, the melting point of the gas vent valve becomes too low, which reduces its storage characteristics at high temperatures ([0011]). The vent member having a melting temperature exceeding 80°C overlaps with the claimed range of claim 22 . Additionally, the melting of the vent member at above 80°C would have resulted in the vent member venting gases at a temperature above 80°C, a temperature which overlaps with the claimed range in claim 10 . 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. Claim s 11 - 12 , 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonozaki et al (JP 2001283800 A, published 2001-10-12) . Regarding claim 11, Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, and Sonozaki further teaches that rising of internal pressure within the battery due to gas generation under abnormal battery operation can open the heat sealed portion of the battery, causing the power generation element (corresponding to an electrode assembly) to fly out from the opening and potentially damaging external equipment (machine translation [0002]). They further disclose that the ejection of the power generation element is associated with insufficient reducing of the internal pressure of the battery ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Sonozaki’s teaching that the venting pressure is a result-effective variable that affects the integrity of the heat seal of the battery, as taught by Sonozaki, and would have found it obvious to have optimized the pressure at which the vent member is vented to prevent opening of the heat sealed portion of the battery and the consequent ejection of the electrode assembly and potential damage to external equipment. Regarding claim 12 , Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1. Sonozaki further teaches the gas venting valve 5 (i.e., vent member) can have a sealing strength of 1.5 kgf/15 mm and 0 .5 kgf/15 mm , thereby teaching it can have a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm ([0024], [0026]). However, Sonozaki does not explicitly disclose the temperature associated with the sealing strength. Given that Sonozaki teaches the sealing strength affects control over release of pressurized gas from the battery during overheating events and also controls leakage during storage ([0021], [0038] para 1), and also teaches optimizing melting temperature of the gas venting valve based on the associated sealing strength requirements at various operating temperatures and pressures including those experienced during storage and during overheating of the battery ([0011], [0021]), a skilled artisan would have known to adjust the venting member sealing strength to obtain a venting function for specific operating temperatures and pressures based on the conditions taught by Sonozaki which would render obvious the claimed average sealing strengths and maximum sealing strengths of the venting member at the different temperatures. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 1 4 , Sonozaki teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 . Sonozaki further teaches the gas venting valve 5 (i.e., vent member) can have a sealing strength of 1.5 kgf/15 mm and 0 .5 kgf/15 mm ([0024], [0026]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the vent member has a maximum sealing strength equal to or greater than 6 kgf/15 mm and an average sealing strength equal to or greater than 4.5 kgf/15 mm between room temperature and 60°C. Given that Sonozaki teaches the sealing strength affects control over release of pressurized gas from the battery during overheating events and also controls leakage during storage ([0021], [0038] para 1), and also teaches optimizing melting temperature of the gas venting valve based on the associated sealing strength requirements at various operating temperatures and pressures including those experienced during storage and during overheating of the battery ([0011], [0021]), a skilled artisan would have known to adjust the venting member sealing strength to obtain a venting function for specific operating temperatures and pressures based on the conditions taught by Sonozaki which would render obvious the claimed average sealing strengths and maximum sealing strengths of the venting member at the different temperatures. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Claim s 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1 , published 2003-08-07 ) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yoo ( US 20190210322 A1 , published 2019-07-11 , submitted in IDS 05/08/2023 ) . Regarding claim 3, Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the thermal conductive layer includes thermally conductive particles including boron nitride, aluminum nitride, or a mixture thereof. Yoo teaches a thermally conductive thin sheet that can be used in a battery or a battery case ([0206]) wh ich comprises a thermally conductive adhesive film comprising a binder resin, an adhesive, and fillers, including boron nitride. ([0027], [0064]). Yoo teaches heat generated during use of an electronic device can be effectively removed by applying the thermally conductive thin film sheet (Abstract). Given that Gu discloses the need to address problems associated with heat and gases generated when the lithium secondary battery is overcharged and/or the electrolyte is thermally decomposed (Gu: [0007], [0015]), as well as the principle of melting the safety tape 50 ( i.e. , vent member) under excessive heat to release pressurized gas to the outside ([0037]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Gu’s secondary battery to utilize Yoo’s thermally conductive thin sheet within the sealant layer of modified Gu to facilitate melting of the safety tape and mitigate problems associated with excessive heating in the battery; accordingly, the combination reads on the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 5 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the thermal conductive layer is in a film shape including thermally conductive particles and a binder. Yoo teaches a thermally conductive thin sheet (which corresponds to a film shape ) that can be used in a battery or a battery case ([0206]) which comprises a thermally conductive adhesive film comprising a binder resin , an adhesive, and fillers which impart excellent thermal conductivity. ([0027], [0039]). Yoo teaches heat generated during use of an electronic device can be effectively removed by applying the thermally conductive thin film sheet (Abstract). Given that Gu teaches the need to address problems associated with heat and gases generated when the lithium secondary battery is overcharged and/or the electrolyte is thermally decomposed (Gu: [0007], [0015]), as well as the principle of melting the safety tape 50 ( i.e. , vent member) under excessive heat to release pressurized gas to the outside ([0037]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Gu’s secondary battery to utilize Yoo’s thermally conductive thin sheet within the sealant layer of modified Gu to facilitate melting of the safety tape and mitigate problems associated with excessive heating in the battery; accordingly, the combination reads on the claimed limitation. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1, published 2003-08-07) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kono et al (JP 2001273884 A, published 2001-10-05 , submitted in IDS 02/21/2025 ) . Regarding claim 8, Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1. Gu discloses the vent member is located in the sealing portion but is silent with respect to wherein the vent member is located at a corner of the case where the electrode lead is exposed to the outside. Kono teaches a battery container in which gas in the battery container can be effectively discharged via an exhaust port 9 (Figs. 3-4 and 6; machine translation p6 para 8-10 to p7 para 1-7); therefore , it is a known configuration. Kono further teaches that the exhaust port allows for a configuration in which gas in the package can be evacuated effectively, which can negatively affect voltage and discharge capacity at a high discharge, consequently reducing battery performance (Abstract and [0009] para 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange the tape 50 of Gu to a corner of the case such that the vent member is provided at a corner of the case where the electrode lead is exposed to the outside 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 ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse , 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to rearrange the tape 50 of Gu to a corner of the case such that the vent member is provided at a corner of the case where the electrode lead is exposed to the outside, because Kono teaches it is a known configuration for evacuating gas in the battery package effectively, an advantage that mitigat es negative impacts to battery performance. Claims 10- 11, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1, published 2003-08-07) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sonozaki et al (JP 2001283800 A, published 2001-10-12) . Regarding claim s 10 and 22 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 but Gu is silent as to wherein the venting temperature of the vent member and the melting temperature of the vent member . Sonozaki teaches a battery with a gas vent valve located between inner resin layers of an aluminum laminate casing (machine translation [0005]), wherein the vent member is melted to vent gases [0006] and at a temperature exceeding 80°C ([0010]) for the reason that if the melting point of the gas vent valve is below 80°C, the melting point of the gas vent valve becomes too low, which reduces its storage characteristics at high temperatures ([0011]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Gu’s secondary battery to use a vent member with a melting point above 80 ° C to optimize it storage characteristics at high temperature , which is an overlapping range to the claimed range in claim 22 . 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Gu teaches that when the safety tape 50 (i.e., vent member) melts, it allows the internal gases to leak to the outside and thereby preventing explosion of the battery ([0034], [0037]). Thus, within the combination, the melting of the vent member at above 80 ° C would have resulted in the vent member venting gases at a temperature above 80 ° C , a temperature which overlaps with the claimed range in claim 10 . 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 11 , modified Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 0 . Sonozaki teaches that rising of internal pressure within the battery due to gas generation under abnormal battery operation can open the heat sealed portion of the battery, causing the power generation element (corresponding to an electrode assembly) to fly out from the opening and potentially damaging external equipment (machine translation [0002]). They further disclose that the ejection of the power generation element is associated with insufficient reducing of the internal pressure of the battery ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Sonozaki’s teaching that the venting pressure is a result-effective variable that affects the integrity of the heat seal of the battery, as taught by Sonozaki, and would have found it obvious to have optimized the pressure at which the vent member is vented to prevent opening of the heat sealed portion of the battery and the consequent ejection of the electrode assembly and potential damage to external equipment. Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1, published 2003-08-07) as applied to claim 1 , and further in view of Choi et al (US 20190207171 A1, published 2019-07-04 ) . Regarding claim s 12 and 14 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 10 but is silent with respect to the sealing strengths of the vent members. Choi in a similar field of endeavor teaches the sealing strength of the pouch can be between 9.3 kgf/ 15 mm or lower such as 2.9 kgf/15 mm ([0081]-[0084]) and that a lower sealing strength can mean a rupture of the pouch casing. Therefore, the sealing strength of the venting member is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the sealing strength of the venting member of Gu as taught by Choi such that they are between 2.9-9.3 kgf/15 mm as is consistent with the design of the venting member to rupture to release gases from the battery casing. Accordingly, 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 would have known to adjust the venting member sealing strength to obtain a venting function for specific operating temperatures 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Claims 16-21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20030148173 A1, published 2003-08-07) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20130053527 A1, published 2013-02-28 ) Evidentiary support is provided by references Li et al, “ Effect of Crystallinity of Polyethylene with Different Densities on Breakdown Strength and Conductance Property ” Materials, 12, 1746 , (2019), and Häfele et al, “ Crystallization of poly(ethylene-co-octene): II Melt memory effects on first order kinetics ” Eur. Phys. J. E 16, 217–224 (2005) Regarding claim s 16 -17 , Gu teaches the secondary battery of claim 1. Gu teaches the vent member can contain linear low-density polyethylenes [0030] but is silent as to whether it has a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. Lee teaches a copolymer formed to provide a film with a sufficient sealing effect ([0002]-[0003], [0011]) and is analogous art because the instant invention includes low melting polymer materials used for sealing applications. Lee discloses a comonomer (alpha-olefin such as octene ) can be added through a metallocene catalyst to polyethylene in order to enhance the physiochemical characteristics of the polymer, including its melting point ([0002]-[0004]), and that the comonomer can have a carbon number within the claimed range of a carbon number of 6 or more ([0028]-[0035]). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the modified secondary battery of Gu to use a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more to optimize physiochemical characteristics such as the melting point of the copolymer, as taught by Lee. Regarding claim 18, modified Gu teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Lee further teaches a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 2 to 20 mol% [0041] resulting in a weight percentage range of about 8 wt% - 50 wt%, which would overlap with the claimed weight percentage based on 100% of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, Table 3 of Lee shows different melting points arising from different mol% of octene used in the copolymer and Lee also discloses melting point of the copolymer affects its sealing performance and strength ([0043]); thus, the amount of mol% octene ( and the correspond ing wt% of octene) is a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the arts would have found it obvious to have adjusted the content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more (mol% and its corresponding weight %) to optimize the melting temperature of the copolymer within modified Gu , as taught by Lee, and would have accordingly arrived at the claimed range. Regarding claim 19 , modified Gu teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Lee further teaches wherein 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 (Gu teaches a polydispersity index Mw/Mn of 3.5 or less [0026]). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 20, modified Gu teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Gu further teaches wherein the case includes a sealing portion (first and second binding portions 41/43) formed to seal the electrode assembly (electrode assembly 30); Gu describes that when the first binding portion and second binding portion are fused together, the electrode assembly is sealed [0029]. Gu also discloses the laminated container 40 which includes the binding portions 41/43 is made of resin [0028] and also discloses the binding portions are thermally fused to seal [0029]; therefore, Gu teaches the sealing portion contains a sealant resin). Gu teaches the laminated container can be formed by coating aluminum foil with nylon, polyethylene-co-acrylic acid (EAA), or polyethylene films ([0028]) , which would correspond to a material of the sealant resin . Evidentiary reference Li teaches that the crystallization temperatures of polyethylene can range from 94 ° C -113 ° C (Table 1). A crystallization temperature range of poly(ethylene-co-octene) is taught by evidentiary reference Häfele as being 89°C- 97 ° C (p14: Fig. 4) therefore a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin (94°C -113°C) and that of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more (the ethylene-octene copolymer taught by Lee of the combination) (89°C- 97°C) is in the range of about 3°C to 24°C, which overlaps with the difference of 10°C or less. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 21, modified Gu teaches all the limitations of claim 20. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 20, a crystallization temperature range of poly(ethylene-co-octene), corresponding to the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more of the combination, is taught by evidentiary reference Häfele as being 89°C- 97°C (p14: Fig. 4). This overlaps with the claimed range, and therefore, provides a prima facie case of obviousness; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 23 , modified Gu teaches all the limitations of claim 16 . Lee of the combination further teaches wherein the poly(ethylene-co-octene) corresponding to the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more, has a weight average molecular weight Mw of 30,000 to 300,000 (Table 3 and [0026]), which overlaps with the claimed range. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GIGI LIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2017 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 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. /G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 2 April 2026