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 .
Examiner Comment
Please note that claim 21 is withdrawn and a proper status identifier would indicate it as withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imamura (JP 2014212034 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Imamura discloses a battery cell, comprising (See Figs. 2, 5a, 5b):
a battery case (10) having an accommodation portion (internal portion) in which an electrode assembly ([0071]-[0072] tab lead connected to current collector) is mounted,
and a sealing portion (portion in which 12 contacts 10) formed by sealing an outer periphery thereof;
an electrode lead (14) electrically connected to an electrode tab (current collector portion) included in the electrode assembly and protruding out of the battery case via the sealing portion; and
a lead film (16 [0074]) 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,
wherein a gas discharge guiding unit (12 [0010]) is inserted in the lead film (16 surrounds electrode lead 14 and therefore 12 is within 16), the sealing portion includes a first sealing portion located on the gas discharge guiding unit (portions on 14 and 12) and a second sealing portion located at both sides of the first sealing portion (portions adjacent to portions on 14 and 12), 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 (adjacent portions can be wider), and wherein the gas discharge guiding unit extends further than an outer end of the sealing portion in the protruding direction (See Fig. 5a).
Regarding claims 18-20, Imamura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, that the gas discharging unit is formed of polyimide ([0073]) and the lead film is formed of polypropylene ([0074]).
Applicant’s specification indicates that the gas discharging unit if formed of polyimide (see [0099] US 20230402704 A1) and the lead film is formed of polypropylene ([0114] US 20230402704 A1).
The following claim limitations:
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
will be present in the film of Imamura since Imamura is formed of the same material as noted in Applicant’s specification which has the above recited properties.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Imamura discloses a battery cell, comprising (See Figs. 2, 5a, 5b):
a battery case (10) having an accommodation portion (internal portion) in which an electrode assembly ([0071]-[0072] tab lead connected to current collector) is mounted,
and a sealing portion (portion in which 12 contacts 10) formed by sealing an outer periphery thereof;
an electrode lead (14) electrically connected to an electrode tab (current collector portion) included in the electrode assembly and protruding out of the battery case via the sealing portion; and
a lead film (16 [0074]) 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,
wherein a gas discharge guiding unit (12 [0010]) is inserted in the lead film (16 surrounds electrode lead 14 and therefore 12 is within 16), the sealing portion includes a first sealing portion located on the gas discharge guiding unit (portions on 14 and 12) and a second sealing portion located at both sides of the first sealing portion (portions adjacent to portions on 14 and 12), 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 (adjacent portions can be wider), and wherein the gas discharge guiding unit extends further than an outer end of the sealing portion in the protruding direction (See Fig. 5a).
wherein a gas discharge path (12 is formed of polyimide same material as instantly claimed) is formed at an interface between the gas discharge guiding unit (12) and the lead film (14).
In addition, Imamura discloses that the lead film (16) is formed of polypropylene ([0074]) and the electrode lead is a metal film [0072].
Applicant’s specification indicates that the gas discharge film is formed of polyimide (See claim 12), that the lead film is formed of polypropylene ([0114] US 20230402704 A1).
Therefore the property of “wherein an adhesive force between the gas discharge guiding unit 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” will be present since the material for the above structures are all the same as instantly disclosed.
Regarding claim 13, Imamura 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 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) 2, 3, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (JP 2014212034 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9, Imamura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Imamura discloses that the gas discharge portion can be formed only on a portion of a surface of the metal foil ([0076][0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the gas discharge portion in an island-like pattern is only formed at a center of the metal electrode lead of Imamura because Imamura teaches that it is appropriate to do so.
This will result in the following geometries being present:
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
wherein the gas discharge guiding unit is located at a center of the first sealing portion
wherein the first sealing portion has a pattern recessed toward an outer direction based on an inner side of the sealing portion
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Imamura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Imamura discloses wherein an accommodation extending portion (portion directly on electrode lead 14 and 12 located closer to interior) located between first sealing portion (portions on 14 and 12 located closer to exterior) and the accommodation portion (internal portion).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) with further evidence provided by Chaffin (Bonding strategies and adhesives for joining medical device components).
Regarding claim 11, 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),
PNG
media_image1.png
388
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 ).
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).
An discloses that the gas discharge unit (sealing breaking member) starts to deform at a starting temperature T of the sealing breaking member 50 is 80 ° C to 200 ° C(see pg. 4 paragraph 5).
An further discloses that when the gas discharge unit deforms an opening is formed (see pg. 6 And a sealing rupture member of a shape memory alloy material disposed at a position corresponding to the electrode tab of the sealing portion and deformed at a predetermined temperature to open a part of the sealing portion.)
This indicates that the gas discharge unit is no longer adhered to the lead film.
An adhesive force is the force that hold two materials together at their surface (see Chaffin section 14.2.2 pg. 375 first paragraph).
Therefore the property of “wherein an adhesive force between the gas discharge guiding unit 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” since an opening forms at the interface between the gas discharge unit and an adjacent surface which indicates that the adhesive force is zero.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20140087773 A, Machine Translation) with further evidence provided by Chaffin (Bonding strategies and adhesives for joining medical device components) as applied to claims 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) with further evidence provided by Chaffin (Bonding strategies and adhesives for joining medical device components) as applied to claim 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 Imamura (JP 2014212034 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1, 10-13, and 18-20 as applied above and in further view of Yan (WO 2021196000 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 15-17, Imamura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Imamura 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 Imamura as disclosed by Yan because it is an effective structure to release overpressure in a battery cell which is an endeavor of both Imamura and Yan.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (JP 2014212034 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1, 10-13, and 18-20 as applied above and in further view of Hayashi (US 20240145857 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Imamura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Imamura discloses that the gas discharge unit is formed of a gas permeable film ([0073]).
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 Imamura 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.
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 11-14 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 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 21, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that An does not teach or suggest the adhesive force between any components. Even if the sealing breaking member of An deforms at a given melting temperature, that alone does not make it obvious that the adhesive force between the interface of the sealing breaking member 50 and the surrounding film 60 would or should be less than the adhesive force between the surrounding film 60 and sealing
portion 40. An's seal breaking mechanism relies on the deformation of the sealing breaking member's 50 memory-shaped alloy. This deformation acts independently of any adhesive forces between the elements.
An discloses that the gas discharge unit (sealing breaking member) starts to deform at a starting temperature T of the sealing breaking member 50 is 80 ° C to 200 ° C(see pg. 4 paragraph 5).
An further discloses that when the gas discharge unit deforms an opening is formed (see pg. 6 And a sealing rupture member of a shape memory alloy material disposed at a position corresponding to the electrode tab of the sealing portion and deformed at a predetermined temperature to open a part of the sealing portion.)
This indicates that the gas discharge unit is no longer adhered to the lead film.
An adhesive force is the force that hold two materials together at their surface (see Chaffin section 14.2.2 pg. 375 first paragraph).
Therefore the property of “wherein an adhesive force between the gas discharge guiding unit 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” since an opening forms at the interface between the gas discharge unit and the adjacent lead film surface which indicates that the adhesive force is zero.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 02/04/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 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
Prosecution Insights