DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 7/8/26, the following has occurred: Claim 12 has been amended; and new Claims 19-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 12-20 are examined in this office action. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 7/8/26.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011108538 A (JP’538).
As to Claim 12:
JP’538 discloses a secondary battery, namely a laminated lithium-ion secondary battery (JP’538, p. 9, Ex. 1);
an electrode assembly in which sheet-like positive electrodes and sheet-like negative electrodes are laminated via separators to form a laminated electrode body (JP’538, p. 2; p. 8, Ex. 1);
a pouch configured to accommodate the electrode assembly, in the form of an exterior body formed from a metal-laminate film and housing the laminated electrode body (JP’538, p. 2; p. 8, Ex. 1);
the pouch comprises an aluminum sheet and polymer layers laminated with the aluminum sheet. Specifically, the metal-laminate film has an exterior resin layer, a metal layer, and a heat-sealing resin layer (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2), and Example 1 expressly uses a polyester-film/aluminum-film/modified-polyolefin-film laminate (JP’538, p. 8, Ex. 1);
a degassing hole in the aluminum sheet because its penetrating portion 5 extends through the metal layer to serve as a vent, and the metal layer may be an aluminum film (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2; p. 7; p. 8, Ex. 1); and
the degassing hole is covered by the polymer layer because, during heat sealing, part of the heat-sealing resin melts into and blocks the opening of penetrating portion 5 (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2).
As to Claim 13:
JP’538 further discloses that the polymer layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer. Specifically, the exterior body’s metal-laminate film includes exterior resin layer 21, metal layer 22, and heat-sealing resin layer 23 (JP’538, pp. 2–3, Fig. 2).
JP’538 discloses that, from the pouch interior outward, the heat-sealing resin layer 23 is the first polymer layer, followed by metal layer 22, followed by exterior resin layer 21 as the second polymer layer (JP’538, pp. 2–3, Fig. 2). Example 1 expressly confirms this arrangement with a polyester-film/aluminum-film/modified-polyolefin-film laminate, with the electrode body placed on the modified-polyolefin film layer, i.e., the inner layer (JP’538, p. 8, Example 1). JP’538 further identifies modified polyolefin as a heat-sealing resin and polyester or nylon as exterior-resin materials (JP’538, p. 7).
Accordingly, JP’538 discloses the claimed first polymer layer/aluminum sheet/second polymer layer stack outward from the pouch interior.
As to Claim 17:
JP’538 further discloses that the degassing hole is formed between the electrode assembly and an outer circumferential surface of the pouch. Specifically, JP’538 discloses that laminated electrode body is housed within exterior body 2 (JP’538, p. 2, Fig. 1), while penetrating portion 5, which serves as the vent portion, is formed in the heat-seal portion at the peripheral edge of exterior body 2 (JP’538, p. 3, Figs. 1-2).
JP’538 further teaches that penetrating portion 5 is positioned at least 1 mm outward from the inner end of the peripheral heat-seal portion (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2), and Example 1 forms the penetrating portion 3 mm from that inner end (JP’538, p. 8, Example 1). Thus, the vent-forming penetrating portion in the aluminum film is disposed outward of the electrode assembly and within the pouch’s peripheral edge region, i.e., between the electrode assembly and the outer circumferential surface of the pouch.
As to Claim 18:
JP'538 discloses the secondary battery of claim 17 (JP'538 discloses a laminate battery and further describes a lithium ion secondary battery comprising an electrode body in which positive electrodes, negative electrodes, and separators are laminated and housed within an exterior body 2 formed of a metal laminate film including a metal layer 22, and further including a portion penetrating the metal layer that serves as a vent part formed in a heat seal portion at a peripheral edge of the exterior body and at a location 1 mm or more outside from the inner end of the heat seal portion, thereby teaching a hole formed in the aluminum sheet between the electrode assembly and an outer circumferential surface (pp. 1–4));
further comprising an electrode lead configured to connect the electrode assembly to an external device (JP'538 teaches that a “positive external terminal 3 and a negative external terminal 4 are drawn from the exterior body 2” and are connected to the sheet-like electrodes inside the exterior body (p. 2));
wherein the degassing hole is formed in a portion of the aluminum sheet at a side at which the electrode lead is disposed (JP'538 teaches that “the positive electrode external terminal 3 and the negative electrode external terminal 4 are drawn from the same side of the outer package 2” (p. 2), and further teaches that the portion penetrating the metal layer serving as the vent part is formed in the heat seal portion at the peripheral edge of the outer package (p. 3)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011108538 A (JP’538), as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of US 20160087250 (US’250).
As to Claim 14:
JP’538 discloses the first polymer layer, aluminum sheet, and second polymer layer stacked outward from the pouch interior (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2; p. 7; pp. 8-9, Example 1).
However, JP’538 does not expressly disclose that the first, interior polymer layer is polypropylene (PP) and that the second, exterior polymer layer is polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
US’250 discloses a secondary-battery pouch film having, in sequence, an inner resin layer including polypropylene (PP), an aluminum layer, and an outer resin layer including polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (US’250, [0003]). US’250 further teaches that PP may be used for the inner resin layer to provide heat-sealing capability, moisture resistance, heat resistance, and good lamination processability (US’250, [0028]), and expressly identifies PET as a suitable material for the outer resin layer (US’250, [0024]).
JP’538 and US’250 are analogous art because both concern multilayer aluminum-resin pouch structures used as exterior packages for secondary batteries (JP’538, pp. 2-3, Figs. 1-2; US’250, [0002]-[0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify JP’538’s heat-sealing resin layer and exterior resin layer by selecting PP as the first, interior polymer layer and PET as the second, exterior polymer layer, as taught by US’250. Such a modification would provide JP’538’s pouch battery and aluminum-layer vent structure with the expressly taught PP/aluminum/PET pouch-film arrangement, while obtaining the heat-sealing, moisture-resistance, heat-resistance, lamination, and exterior-protection properties identified by US’250 (US’250, pp. 2, 5-6, [0003], [0024], [0028]).
As to Claim 19:
JP’538 further discloses that a penetrating portion 5 is formed through metal layer 22 and serves as a vent portion (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2). JP’538 teaches that, during heat sealing, molten heat-sealing resin enters the penetrating portion and blocks its opening, thereby covering the vent opening on the inner, heat-sealing-resin side of the metal layer (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2). JP’538 additionally teaches that the penetrating portion need penetrate only the metal layer; a corresponding penetrating portion in the exterior resin layer is merely optional (JP’538, p. 7). Thus, in the disclosed embodiment in which only the metal layer is penetrated, the exterior resin layer remains over the opposite side of the penetrating portion. JP’538 therefore teaches the degassing hole covered by polymer layers on respective opposite sides of the aluminum sheet.
However, JP’538 does not expressly disclose that the first, inner heat-sealing polymer layer is polypropylene (PP) and that the second, exterior polymer layer is polyethylene terephthalate (PET), as required by incorporated claim 14. JP’538 instead identifies modified polyolefin for the heat-sealing resin layer and identifies PET as one possible exterior-resin material (JP’538, p. 7).
US’250 discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery having an aluminum layer, an outer resin layer on a first surface of the aluminum layer, and an inner resin layer on a second surface of the aluminum layer (US’250, [0007], [0017]). US’250 teaches that the inner resin layer may include polypropylene (PP), which provides heat-sealing capability, moisture resistance, heat resistance, and good lamination processability (US’250, [0028]). US’250 further teaches that the outer resin layer may comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (US’250, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify JP’538’s inner heat-sealing resin layer and exterior resin layer by selecting PP and PET, respectively, as taught by US’250, while retaining JP’538’s metal-layer penetrating vent portion. The resulting pouch would have a PP first polymer layer covering the degassing hole on the inner side of the aluminum sheet and a PET second polymer layer covering the degassing hole on the opposite side, and would obtain the heat-sealing, moisture-resistance, heat-resistance, lamination, and exterior-layer properties taught by US’250 (JP’538, pp. 3, 7, Fig. 2; US’250, [0024], [0028]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011108538 A (JP’538), as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of US 20160087250 (US’250) and NPL, Dimensional Changes in Automotive Pouch Li-Ion Cells: A Combined Thermo-Mechanical/Electrochemical Study, by Gibellini et al.
As to Claim 15:
JP’538 also discloses the claimed electrode assembly, pouch, aluminum-layer penetrating vent portion, and polymer layer covering the vent portion (JP’538, pp. 2–3, Figs. 1–2; p. 8, Ex. 1).
However, JP’538 does not disclose that its first, cell-facing polymer layer comprises both an inner PP layer and an outer PPA layer facing the aluminum sheet. JP’538 instead identifies a heat-sealing resin layer that may be a modified-polyolefin film, and does not identify PPA as the aluminum-facing sublayer of that inner polymer layer (JP’538, p. 7).
Gibellini discloses a lithium-ion battery having a flexible pouch made of aluminum foil with laminated polymer sheets on both sides. Gibellini expressly teaches that, inside the aluminum sheet, the electrolyte barrier is a PPA sheet and a PP layer is located on the electrolyte side; consequently, from the battery interior outward, the pouch has the claimed PP/PPA/aluminum arrangement (Gibellini, p. A2304, “Li-ion soft pack battery structure: materials”). Gibellini further teaches that the lower melting point of PP relative to PPA provides proper hot sealing (Gibellini, p. A2304).
US’250 discloses a secondary-battery pouch film in which an inner resin layer containing PP, an aluminum layer, and an outer resin layer containing PET are sequentially arranged (US’250, [0003]). US’250 further discloses that PET is a suitable insulating material for the outer resin layer (US’250, [0024]) and that PP in the inner resin layer provides heat-sealing capability, moisture resistance, heat resistance, and good lamination processability (US’250, [0028]).
JP’538, Gibellini, and US’250 are analogous art because each concerns polymer/aluminum pouch structures for lithium-ion or secondary batteries. JP’538 addresses a vented metal-laminate battery pouch (JP’538, pp. 2–3, Figs. 1–2); Gibellini addresses the layer structure of a lithium-ion pouch (Gibellini, p. A2304); and US’250 addresses aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery (US’250, [0002]–[0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify JP’538’s cell-facing heat-sealing resin layer to include an inner PP layer and an aluminum-facing PPA layer, as taught by Gibellini, to provide proper hot sealing and an electrolyte barrier (Gibellini, p. A2304), and to select PET as JP’538’s outer resin layer, as taught by US’250, to provide an insulating outer pouch layer for protection from external impact (US’250, [0003], [0024]). The resulting pouch would have, from the cell interior outward, PP/PPA/aluminum/PET, while retaining JP’538’s aluminum-layer vent structure.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011108538 A (JP’538), as applied to Claim 12, and further in view of US 20060093908 (US’908).
JP’538 further discloses that the metal layer may be aluminum (JP’538, p. 7) and that the pouch includes a penetrating vent portion in the metal layer, which is blocked by melted heat-sealing resin during pouch sealing (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2).
However, JP’538 does not expressly disclose a nylon layer further stacked between the aluminum sheet and the second polymer layer. JP’538 identifies nylon film and PET film as alternative examples of the exterior resin layer, but does not disclose a nylon layer disposed between the aluminum layer and a further outward polymer layer (JP’538, p. 7).
US’908 discloses the missing layer arrangement in a secondary-battery pouch. US’908 discloses a laminated battery case having an inner sealant layer 9c, a metal-foil barrier layer 9b, an outer coating layer 9a, and a PET layer 9d on the outer surface of outer coating layer 9a (US’908, [0026]). US’908 specifies that outer coating layer 9a is an oriented nylon film, barrier layer 9b is aluminum alloy foil, and inner sealant layer 9c is cast polypropylene film (US’908, [0027]-[0029]). Moreover, Examples 1 and 2 expressly disclose the laminate sequence “PET15 / ONy25 / Al80 / CPP,” which, from the pouch interior outward, places CPP, aluminum, oriented nylon, and PET in that order (US’908, [0033], Table 2). Thus, US’908 discloses a nylon layer further stacked between the aluminum sheet and the outward PET polymer layer. US’908 further teaches that the added PET outer layer provides tensile strength, impact strength, and durability, and that the PET-added examples exhibit particularly excellent mechanical strength (US’908, [0026], [0036]).
JP’538 and US’908 are analogous art because both concern secondary batteries having electrode assemblies accommodated in laminated metal-and-polymer pouch cases (JP’538, pp. 2-3, Figs. 1-2; US’908, [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify JP’538’s pouch by providing an oriented nylon layer immediately outward of the aluminum sheet and a further outward PET polymer layer, as taught by US’908, thereby placing the nylon layer between the aluminum sheet and the second polymer layer. The modification would provide the tensile strength, impact strength, durability, and improved mechanical strength taught by US’908 while retaining JP’538’s inner heat-sealing resin layer and aluminum-layer vent structure (US’908, [0026], [0036]; JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011108538 A (JP’538), as applied to Claim 12, and further in view of US 6969567 B1 (US’567).
As to claim 20:
JP’538 further teaches that the molten heat-sealing resin enters and blocks the penetrating portion during pouch sealing, thereby suppressing electrolyte-solvent evaporation through the penetrating portion (JP’538, p. 3).
However, JP’538 does not expressly disclose that the polymer layer covering the degassing hole is permeable to internally generated gas while impermeable to the electrolyte, such that gas passes through the polymer layer and the degassing hole from inside to outside the secondary battery. Rather, JP’538 teaches a heat-sealing resin that blocks the penetrating portion until the internal pressure rises sufficiently to rupture the heat-sealing resin at that location (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2).
US’567 discloses a rechargeable electrochemical cell having a gas-permeable material forming a gas port that allows cell gases to flow into and out of the cell while preventing cell electrolyte from leaving the cell (US’567, col. 6, lines 36-54). US’567 further discloses that the gas-permeable membrane material is permeable to cell gases and impermeable to the cell electrolyte, preferably by using a hydrophobic material (US’567, col. 6, lines 50-65). US’567 expressly teaches that the membrane may comprise a polymeric material, including a polyethylene film rendered porous by calcium-carbonate particles and stretching (US’567, col. 6, lines 60-67; col. 7, lines 1-8). US’567 additionally teaches positioning the gas-permeable membrane over an opening in the cell enclosure (US’567, col. 7, lines 25-42).
JP’538 and US’567 are analogous art because both concern rechargeable secondary-battery enclosures having gas-release structures that prevent or reduce electrolyte leakage. JP’538 addresses a vent in a metal-laminate secondary-battery pouch while suppressing electrolyte-solvent leakage (JP’538, pp. 2-3, Figs. 1-2), and US’567 addresses a gas port that permits gas passage while preventing electrolyte passage (US’567, col. 6, lines 36-65).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the polymer layer covering JP’538’s aluminum-layer penetrating portion to comprise US’567’s gas-permeable, electrolyte-impermeable polymeric membrane. This modification would allow internally generated gas to pass from inside the battery through the polymer layer and JP’538’s degassing hole to the outside, while preventing electrolyte leakage, as expressly taught by US’567 (US’567, col. 6, lines 36-65; col. 7, lines 1-8), and would retain JP’538’s aluminum-sheet pouch and degassing-hole structure (JP’538, pp. 2-3, Figs. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP’538 does not disclose the claimed “degassing hole … covered by the polymer layer” because Figure 2 allegedly shows penetrating portion 5 extending through both metal layer 22 and heat-sealing resin layer 23. However, JP’538 must be considered as a whole. JP’538 expressly teaches that the penetrating portion “only has to penetrate only the metal layer” from one side to the other. JP’538 further teaches that, when a three-layer metal laminate film is used, a corresponding penetrating portion in the exterior resin layer is optional (JP’538, p. 7).
Moreover, JP’538 expressly explains the structure of the completed heat-sealed battery: a portion of the heat-sealing resin melts during heat sealing, enters the penetrating portion in metal layer 22, and thereby blocks the opening, suppressing moisture intrusion and electrolyte-solvent evaporation (JP’538, p. 3, Fig. 2). Thus, JP’538 discloses a polymeric heat-sealing resin layer covering the opening formed in the metal layer.
Applicant’s position that a polymer-covered opening could not serve as a vent is also unpersuasive. JP’538 explains that, when the internal battery pressure abnormally rises, the heat-sealing resin at the location of penetrating portion 5 breaks and releases the internal pressure (JP’538, p. 3). Claim 12 does not require the polymer layer to be gas permeable or to leave the degassing hole continuously open under normal operating conditions. Rather, claim 12 requires that the degassing hole formed in the aluminum sheet be covered by the polymer layer, which JP’538 expressly teaches.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JP’538 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights