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
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected battery module, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A drawn to Fig. 4(a), drawn to claims 1-3 and 5-20 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as being anticipated by An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, 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 (40) in at least one of an upper portion and a lower portion of the electrode lead (2),
wherein a gas discharge guiding unit (50/51/52, see pg. 4) is inserted in the lead film (60),
the sealing portion (40) includes a first sealing portion (portions of 40 in direct contact with 50/51/52 and 60) located on the gas discharge guiding unit and a second sealing portion (all other portions) located at both sides of the first sealing portion, and based on a protruding direction of the electrode lead, a width of the first sealing portion is smaller than a width of the second sealing portion (See Figs. 1-7, and note in Fig 4 the width of 40 exceeds portions of first sealing layer in direct contact with 50/51/52 ).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein based on a direction perpendicular to the protruding direction of the electrode lead, a length of the first sealing portion is greater than a length of the gas discharge guiding unit (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
513
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein the gas discharge guiding unit (50) is located at a center of the first sealing portion (See annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 5, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein the first sealing portion has a pattern recessed toward an outer direction based on an inner side of the sealing portion (See annotated figures above).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein an accommodation extending portion is located between the first sealing portion and the accommodation portion and wherein based on an outer side of the battery case, an end of the accommodation extending portion is located outer than an end of the accommodation portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
513
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, An discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, An discloses wherein the gas discharge guiding unit extends along the 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 which depicts inside and outside).
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11, An discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
In another embodiment not shown An discloses that the gas discharge guiding unit is formed in direct contact with the tab and the lead film coats the guide unit (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 will result in a gas discharge path is 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 or an adhesive force between the lead film and the sealing portion (see pg. 4).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 9-11 above and in further view of Lee (US 20190198827 A1).
Regarding claims 12, 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.
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 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.
Regarding claim 13, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 9-11 above and in view of Lee (US 2019/0198827 A1) and in further view of Hayashi (US 20240145857 A1).
Regarding claim 14, 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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-8 above and in further view of Yan (WO 2021196000 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 15-17, 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 and 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 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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-8 and in further view of Koroda (JP 2005038707, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, 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 1-3 and 5-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/035667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same structure for a battery cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/266703. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same structure for a battery cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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