DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after July 12, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on September 29, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one corner portion” that includes a scope of “one or more”. Claims 1, 7-8, and 11-12 then recite “the corner portion.” In situations where there are plural corner portions, the scope of “the corner portion” would be unclear as to whether it is referring to only one corner portion or all of the plural corner portions. Examiner suggests amending “the corner portion” to recite “the at least one corner portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “a pair of second sealing portions” (i.e., two sealing portions) and then recites “the second sealing portion”. It is unclear if “the second sealing portion” is referring to each one of the pair of second sealing portions or only one of the two second sealing portions (and if only one, which one). The scope of claim 5 is therefore unclear. Claim 6 is further rejected because of its dependency upon claim 5 and because it inherits the same deficiencies.
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) the 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2024/0039126 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery (a pouch-type secondary battery (Para [0067])), comprising:
an electrode assembly comprising a cathode and an anode (a battery cell (110) containing an electrode assembly with electrode leads (labelled 111, 112, respectively) extending from the cathode and anode plates (Para [0051]; Fig. 6);
a pouch case comprising an accommodating portion in which the electrode assembly is placed, and a peripheral portion extending along a circumference of the accommodating portion and sealing the electrode assembly (pouch cell 110 comprises a cell main body 113; Kim explicitly identifies “pouch-type battery cells" (Para [0051]) wherein the pouch-type cell comprises a flexible case with a central accommodating pocket and a peripheral sealing wing where the film layers are heat-sealed to enclose the assembly (see Fig. 6));
an anti-venting tool coupled to at least one corner portion among corner portions of the peripheral portion to fix the corner portion (“venting-preventing part 310P” wherein element 310P is a structural component coupled to the busbar frame that interfaces with the cell stack at the edges and or corners near the leads (Para [0066]). This structure "fixes" the position of the cell periphery to suppress gas-induced expansion (Para [0069]; Figs. 7, 9-10)),
wherein the corner portion is inserted through the anti-venting tool to protrude from the anti-venting tool (Kim discloses the venting-preventing part 310 is positioned such that the peripheral portions and or leads of the battery cell (111, 112) pass through or reside within the support structures of the frame. This configuration inherently results in the "corner portion" of the pouch protruding through the mechanical constraint of the "venting-preventing" assembly to reach the electrical connections (see Figs. 5, 7, 9-10)).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein the anti-venting tool is coupled to each of the corner portions (the top and bottom corner portions of the battery cell 110 shown in Fig. 7 are coupled to the anti-venting tool as shown in Fig. 10. Furthermore, the embodiment of Fig. 14 shows a first anti-venting tool 310 and a second anti-venting tool 320 that combined couple to all four corner portions of the pouch cell 110).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses wherein the peripheral portion comprises:
a first side and a second side that are parallel to a long axis direction of the electrode assembly to face each other (see Fig, 7 annotated below, the red and green lines are the first and second sides, respectively);
a third side and a fourth side that are parallel to a short axis direction of the electrode assembly to face each other (refer to the yellow line in Fig 7 and the inherent side parallel to this, each are the third and fourth sides, respectively);
wherein the anti-venting tool crosses two sides meeting each other among the first side to the fourth side in a planar direction (the anti-venting tool crosses sides one through three on one end and sides one through two and four on the other end, see annotated Fig. 7 below and Figs. 9-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein the peripheral portion comprises a folding portion (connection part 115 (Fig. 6, Paras [0052-0053])) and a sealing portion (three sealing parts 114sa, 114sb, and 114sc (Fig. 6, Paras. [0052-0053])), and the anti-venting tool comprising a first anti-venting tool coupled to the sealing portion (the anti-venting tool is then coupled across the sealing portion as shown in Fig. 7 above and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses
the sealing portion comprises a first sealing portion (annotated in figure 6 below as component 114 sc) facing the folding portion (annotated in figure 6 below as component 115),
a pair of second sealing portions connected to the folding portion and the first sealing portion (refer to annotated figure 6 below as components 114sa and 114sb second sealing portions connected to the folding portion 115 and the first sealing portion 114sc),
and the first anti-venting tool is coupled across the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion (the anti-venting tool is then coupled across the sealing portion as shown in Fig. 7 above and Figs. 9-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 6, Kim discloses
the anti-venting tool further comprises a second anti-venting tool coupled across the folding portion and the second sealing portion (see Fig. 14 wherein a second anti-venting tool 320 is provided that couples across the folded portion and the second sealing portions).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses wherein the corner portion has a triangle shape in a planar direction, and a minimum angle of the triangle is in a range from 30º to 45° (the "corner portion" is arbitrary, that can be defined by any drawn barrier or correspond to any portion of the corner of the peripheral portion(s). Referring to annotated Fig 7 below, the angles of two planar sides are drawn below using corner portions of the anti-venting tool. Annotated Fig. 7 demonstrates this "corner portion" which has a right triangle shape where at least one angle would be 30º (e.g., a 30, 60, 90 triangle).
PNG
media_image3.png
715
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a tool comprising “an upper supporting portion, lower supporting portion, and connectors" forming a sandwich or enveloped structure. As annotated below in figures 8-10, the upper supporting portion is labeled by a green arrow, the lower supporting portion is labeled by a red arrow and the connector is designated by the blue arrow. Furthermore, in Figs. 8-10, when the pouch is placed in the anti-venting tool it is held on each side of the pouch by elements 310p. Those are the upper and lower supporting portions. The very bottom of the tool shown in Fig. 8 is the “connector” and that is connected to each of the elements 310P.
PNG
media_image4.png
546
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
550
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
548
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0039126 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim is silent on the specific ratios of the corner and accommodating portion and thus fails to explicitly teach “wherein a ratio of an area of the corner portion to an area of the accommodating portion in a planar direction ranges from 0.02 to 0.15”.
However, Kim teaches, in figure 7, a specific area of the venting tool (parts labeled 110 and 310) is required in order to optimize and prevent gas formation/venting. According to figures 9 and 10, Kim shows us that the anti-venting tool has a minimum range in a planar direction (labeled parts 111, 310p, and 110). Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the battery pack’s anti-venting tool’s area in a planar direction with respect to the size of the accommodating portion in order for the venting-preventing part to function properly in preventing the venting of gas generated by the battery cell (in the accommodating portion).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses an anti-venting tool that would have an inherent width.
Kim does not teach the actual dimensions of the anti-venting tool in a planar direction and therefore fails to teach wherein the width is in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Kim’s anti-venting tool’s width in the planar direction would be between the claimed 1-10 mm thickness in view of figures 7, 9-10 and 14 (parts 111 would fit into the slits of 510 and 520; and the corner portions fit inside the gaps created by elements 310P). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined previously.
Kim is silent on the relative dimensions of the accommodating portion and the anti-venting tool and thus fails to expressly teach “wherein a height of the accommodating portion is greater than a height of the anti-venting tool”.
However, Kim, in figures 5, 7, and 9, teaches that the thickness of component labeled (110) appears to be larger than component (310P). In figure(s) 9 and 10, Kim furthermore demonstrates that 110 clamps into the 310P component. Kim discloses the necessity of a venting-preventing part that must fit within the spatial constraints of a battery module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim such that the accommodating portion is greater than the height of the anti-venting tool in view of the approximate dimensions demonstrated in Figs. 5, 7, and 9-10. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a tool comprising “an upper supporting portion, lower supporting portion, and connectors" forming a sandwich or enveloped structure. As annotated above in figures 8-10, with regards to the rejection of claim 11, the upper supporting portion is labeled by a green arrow, the lower supporting portion is labeled by a red arrow and the connector is designated by the blue arrow. Furthermore, in Figs. 8-10, when the pouch is placed in the anti-venting tool it is held on each side of the pouch by elements 310p. Those are the upper and lower supporting portions. The very bottom of the tool shown in Fig. 8 is the “connector” and that is connected to each of the elements 310P.
Kim is silent on a second connector and therefore fails to teach “a second connector connecting the other end of the upper supporting portion and the other end of the lower supporting portion”.
To modify Kim’s, venting-preventing part to include an additional connector at the top as shown in Fig.8 below (with dotted yellow lines), would complete the second connector component that is necessary for the improvement of the anti-venting tool. Furthermore, in Fig. 8 annotated below, Kim does demonstrate that 310 has a part protruding from one side of the edge and it would be obvious to modify this part to replicate that edge portion on the other end of component 310, so that it lies parallel to component 310P. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
PNG
media_image7.png
650
438
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heo et al. (US-20200343503-A1). Evidentiary support provided by Taylor et al. (Construction Materials - Their Nature and Behaviour (5th Edition) - 12.3 Recycling of Aluminium).
Regarding claim 13-14, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses venting-preventing parts made of aluminum containing alloy materials capable of withstanding high-pressure venting that are needed in order to prevent gas escape (Para [0057]).
Kim is silent on the material of the anti-venting tool and therefore fails to teach wherein the anti-venting tool has a yield strength from 0.5 MPa to 500 MPa, as required by claim 13, wherein the anti-venting tool has a tensile modulus from 1 GPa to 500 GPa, as required by claim 14.
Heo teaches an anti-venting tool to be made of aluminum, with a yield strength of 125 MPa (Para [0050]). These material properties fall between the referenced ranges of “0.5 MPa and 500 MPa” and “1 GPa and 500 GPa” as claimed.
Furthermore, according to Taylor, material properties from Table 12.1 annotated below, displays that the tensile strength of pure aluminum ranges from 70-130 MPa and the yield or proof stress ranges from 30-125 MPa with a modulus of elasticity of 70 GPa (Taylor & Francis, 2018, pg. 127). These material properties fall between the referenced ranges of “0.5 MPa and 500 MPa” and “1 GPa and 500 GPa” as claimed.
PNG
media_image8.png
751
1154
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHEED IQBAL MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/NAHEED IQBAL MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713