DETAILED ACTION Claim Analysis The present application contains two active independent claim(s) (claims 1 and 9) and eighteen active dependent claims (claims 2 – 8 and 10 - 20). Examiner’s Comments The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Regarding the limitation(s) ”A lead film for a secondary battery” in claim 1, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc. , 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, since this claim is cast in extremely broad form, one could consider this as reciting ‘A lead (Pb) film ... [ intended use ] comprising a fire extinguishing agent’. However, the Examiner deems that both the as-filed disclosure and claimed intended use of “for a secondary battery” makes it clear that the “A lead film” is not talking about the element Pb, but an electrode lead. No amendment is needed and the Examiner has only considered the claim terms as reciting an (electrode) lead, not an elemental Pb film. Regarding the limitation(s) ”a fire extinguishing agent” in claim 1, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc. , 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, any material that serves to retard, extinguish, resist or otherwise inhibit fire is deemed to read on the generic term “fire extinguishing agent”. This is supported by the various materials, etc. recited in claim 8, which includes conventional additives often classified as ‘fire retardants’ versus ‘fire extinguishing’. Column and line ( or Paragraph Number ) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “ Figure 1, element 1 ” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), fourth paragraph: Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA)], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 requires the selection from, essentially, all the possible known forms of matter: solid, liquid or gas. Why an argument could be made that plasma is a fourth “form of matter”, the Examiner notes that (1) this isn’t necessarily universally accepted and (2) there is no reasonable way that anyone would consider plasma, which is a superheated material, as a “fire extinguishing agent” … fire starting agent, perhaps, but not as a “fire extinguishing agent” as required by the claims. As such, the Examiner deems that this claim fails to add any significant aspects that aren’t already included in claim 1, as all fire extinguishing agents must be one of a solid, liquid or gas given the world we live in . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. (a)(2) T he claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (g)(1) D uring the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. Claim s 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) /(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by IDS reference Nishino et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0373582 A1 ). Regarding independent claim 1 , Nishino et al. disclose an electrode lead film ( Title; Abstract; Figures; e.g. element 14: ) comprising a fire extinguishing agent ( element 14c, second layer filled with foaming agent, etc. per Paragraph 0033 – 0048 ). Regarding independent claim 9, Nishino et al. disclose a case ( Figures 1 and 4 and at least Paragraphs 0063 – 0064 ) comprising a sealing element ( element 90 and/or can be taken as elements 20/30 in Figure 3, illustrated above ) wherein the lead film meets the claimed structural requirements ( Figures 3 and 4 ). The additional limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1. Regarding claim s 2 , 3, 10 and 11 , Nishino et al. disclose the claimed limitations of an ‘inner space’ containing the fire extinguishing component: , wherein the inner space (14c) is enclosed by the lead film elements 14a and 14b. Regarding claim s 4 – 6 and 13 - 18 , Nishino et al. disclose recess spaces meeting the claimed limitations: and , wherein the first image is ‘recessed outward’ towards a sealing structure and the second image is ‘recessed inward’ (towards the electrode lead and the battery center) and both “recesses” include the center film 14c containing the fire extinguishing component. In both recess images illustrated above, they are ‘exposed’ on one side (the second containing the electrode lead within the ‘exposed’ surface). In both recess images above, the limitations of claim 6 are met. Regarding claim 7, this limitation is necessarily met as we live in a world where matter is either liquid, gas or solid. But see also citations above with regard to the component 14c. Regarding claim 8, Nishino et al. disclose components meeting the limitations as recited above ( e.g. see Paragraphs 0033 – 0048 ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience . Claim s 2 – 6 and 10 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. as applied above, and further in view of one or more of IDS references Ha (U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0231307 A1), Matsumoto et al. (JP 2021-096952 A), and/or Shin et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0144561 A1). Nishino et al. is relied upon as described above. Regarding all of these claims (2 – 6 and 10 – 18), w hile the Examiner maintains that Nishino et al. discloses a ‘recess’ meeting the claimed limitations, the Examiner acknowledges that the Examiner is applying a broad interpretation of the term ‘recess’ (i.e. a bend in the entire film, which _does_ create a gap/recess in the film’s longitudinal direction as shown in Figure 3 of Nishino et al. above). However, should it be shown or amendments clarify that the ‘recess’ is contained WITHIN the film itself (versus a bending of the film to create the ‘recess’), the Examiner notes that this structure would still be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a known, conventional equivalent construct to containing a fire extinguishing component within an electrode lead/tab structure. This is taught by one or more of Ha ( Figures; Abstract – noting explicit recitation of a ‘recess’ in the electrode tab filled with a safety film ), Matsumoto et al. ( Figures and Abstract Translation, but especially noting Figure 5 ) and/or Shin et al. ( Title; Abstract; and Figures – noting a plurality of recesses/patterns, including some that do not go entirely through the structure; e.g. Figure 7 ). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, structures wherein the fire extinguishing component is embedded within a film as particles, or as a distinct inner layer, or as a component “layer” within a recess are all known, functionally equivalent structures in the field of electrode leads/tabs including some form of fire extinguishing/safety/fire retardant component. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Furthermore, a skilled artisan would be readily apprised of the pros and cons of forming the recess facing one side or the other and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the shape and structure of the ‘recess’ to fit the desired amount of fire extinguishing component and meet any structural constraints within the body system of the battery. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the A pplicant s ’ invention to modify the device of Nishino et al. to meet the claimed limitations as they apply to the ‘recess’ as taught by one or more of Ha, Matsumoto et al. and/or Shin et al., as forming a fire extinguishing component within a recess in an electrode lead/tab structure is conventional in the art for the reasons set forth above. Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. as applied above in Paragraph No. 8 , and further in view of IDS reference Matsumoto et al. (JP 2021-096952 A) alone ; and Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. in view of Ha, Matsumoto et al. and/or Shin et al. as applied above in Paragraph No. 12 , and further in view of IDS reference Matsumoto et al. (JP 2021-096952 A) alone . The Examiner notes that Matsumoto et al. was also used above in the combined and/or rejection, but this separates out the rejection of these two claims as only Matsumoto et al. reads on these. Nishino et al. , Ha and Shin et al. are relied upon as described above , though the Examiner notes that Shin et al. does disclose a similar structure in Figure 7 wherein an adhesive layer 51 is adjacent the recess and the layers, but this adhesive layer is not presently being taken as the ‘sealing layer’ . None of the above disclose first, second, third and fourth components meeting the claimed limitations as recited above; i.e. wherein the fire extinguishing component is in the first portion adjacent the sealing portion (i.e. the outermost layer of the lead film) or in the third portion adjacent the electrode lead (i.e. the innermost layer of the lead film). However, Matsumoto et al. teach various layer structure as discussed above, including ones comprising two or more layers wherein both layers contain the fire extinguishing component ( e.g. Figure 6 ). It would have been obvious to form 2, 3 or more layers as taught by Matsumoto et al. above and have the fire extinguishing component within all of the layers ( which reads on the present claim language ) as a functionally equivalent structure ( as taught by Matsumoto et al., Figures 1 – 6 ). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, structures wherein the fire extinguishing component is embedded within a single layer or within multiple (2, 3, 4+) layers are all known, functionally equivalent structures in the field of electrode leads/tabs including some form of fire extinguishing/safety/fire retardant component. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the A pplicant s’ invention to modify the device of Nishino et al. to meet the limitations of claims 19 and 20 as taught by Matsumoto et al., as such a structure is a known, functionally equivalent structure for the reasons set forth above. Missing Document Notification The Examiner notes that the PBPUB and WO publication has Drawings associated therewith, but the as-filed disclosure does not contain any Drawing files. Applicants are requested to please provide the Drawings in their next response. Thank you. The Examiner also notes that there is a claim to a foreign priority, but the certified copy ( note: NOT the certified _English Translation_ … this is not required at this time ) is not in the present US Application File Record. If possible, Applicants are requested to include a copy of this document in their next response to ensure the file record is complete. Again, no English Translation is required … just the certified foreign priority document submitted to the WO. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET) . 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1291 . 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. /KEVIN M BERNATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 December 11, 2025