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 .
Remarks
Claim 1, 4, 7-9 have been amended, claim 6 is cancelled, claims 2-3, 5, and 10-11 are as previously presented. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20190004610A) and in view of Yoon’182 (KR20140050182A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery [abstract, Kim], comprising: a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly [abstract, Kim], electrode terminal (“tabs”, 351/352) extending from the electrode assembly [0016, Kim], and a pouch casing including an accommodating portion (130, 230, 330) accommodating the electrode assembly and a sealing portion (141/142, 241/242, 341/342) formed along edges of the accommodating portion to allow the electrode tabs to extend outward [0016, fig. 6, Kim]; a cooling member (“heat dissipation member”, 161/162, 260/261/262, 360) disposed in extending direction of the electrode tabs in a space between the accommodating portion and the sealing portion that is bent to face the accommodating portion and in which the electrode tabs are not disposed [0016, 0019-0020, 0040, 0056, fig. 2, 6, Kim]; wherein the heat dissipation member dissipates heat generated in the battery cell to the outside [0032, 0043, Kim].
Kim is silent to a heat-shrinkable tube covering an outer perimeter surface of the battery cell.
However, Yoon’182 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising electrode tabs extending outwardly [0001, 0035, fig. 1-2, Yoon’182]. Yoon’182 continues to teach of a heat-shrinkable tube (30) covering an outer perimeter surface of the battery cell[0039, fig. 2, Yoon’182]. Additionally, the heat-shrinkable tube covers four sides and does not cover the electrode tabs [0047, fig. 2, Yoon’182]. Applying the heat-shrinkable tube to the electrode assembly allows for the tube to shrink when heat is applied resulting in uniform pressure being applied to the area wrapped by the tube [0027, 0029, 0039, 0047, Yoon’182].
For clarity of the record, the above description reads on the following limitation(s): “and a heat-shrinkable tube covering an outer perimeter surface of the battery cell along a perimeter direction thereof, except for the sealing portion in which the electrode tabs are disposed”.
Fig. 2, depicts the heat-shrinkable tube only wrapping around the central part of the cell and the ends (“sealing portion”) where the electrode tabs would be located are left uncovered.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Kim such that a heat-shrinkable tube was applied to only the outer surface of the electrode cell and heat dissipation member and not sealing portion in which the electrode tabs are disposed . Doing so would allow for a uniform pressure to be applied to the material within the heat-shrinkable tube [0027, 0029, 0039, 0047, Yoon’182].
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery wherein the heat-shrinkable tube is disposed so that an axial direction thereof coincides with the extending directions of the electrode tabs [fig. 1-2, Yoon’182].
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the heat dissipation member extends to a length longer than an axial direction length of the heat-shrinkable tube [fig. 6, Kim; fig. 2, Yoon’182].
For clarity of the record, modified Kim has the heat dissipation member surrounding the battery cell but not surrounding the sealing edge where the electrode assemblies protrude (see rejection of claim 1). The heat dissipation member of Kim contains coolant ports (363/364) that extend past the battery cell so that it may be coupled to a cooling module [0023, 0031, fig. 6, Kim]. The examiner notes that these would extend past the length of the heat-shrinkable tube.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the sealing portion comprises a first sealing portion in which the electrode tabs are disposed and a second sealing portion in which the electrode tabs are not disposed [0016, fig. 6, Kim].
Kim notes that the sealing portions sealed the outer periphery of the storage portion and depicts a “first sealing portion” with the electrode tabs and a “second sealing portion” that houses the heat dissipating members.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein an end of the second sealing portion is bent (“folded”) to form a folding surface [0040, fig. 2 and 6, Kim], and the folding surface of the second sealing portion is bent to face the accommodating portion [0040, fig. 2 and 6, Kim].
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the heat dissipation member (360/363/364) extends to a length longer than a length of the accommodating portion along a longitudinal direction of the battery cell [fig. 6, Kim].
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the heat dissipation member comprises a hollow flow path therein [0046, 0049, Kim].
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the heat-shrinkable tube shrinks by heat [0041, Yoon’182], and the heat dissipation member is made of metal (“a thermally conductive material”) [0023, 0049, Kim].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kruger (US20180026296A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim is silent to a guide block at the end of the at the end of the heat dissipation member to supply a refrigerant to an adjacent battery cell.
However, Kruger discloses a cap (170, “guide block”) placed over adjacent inlet and outlet ports of adjacent pipes (“heat dissipation member”) allowing for liquid connection between pipes and the flow of a liquid coolant (“refrigerant”) from an outlet of one pipe to an inlet of a second pipe [0049, fig. 8a, Kruger].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Kim such that a cap (“guide block”) was used to connect the outlet and inlets of adjacent pipes (“heat dissipation members”). Doing so would allow for refrigerant to flow from one set of pipes to a second one thereby connecting the pipes in a series [0049, fig. 8 and 8a, Kruger].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hong (KR101191425B1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses the secondary battery, wherein the guide block comprises: a passageway (“through-hole”) formed through the body [0049, fig. 8 and 8a, Kruger];
The examiner notes that “in a thickness direction of the body” lacks the defining features required to determine a “thickness direction”. A “thickness direction” depends upon ones orientation relative to the object.
Continuing, modified Kim discloses a connection port comprising a first inner pipe coupled in fluid communication with the end of the heat dissipation member and extending into the body from a facing surface facing the first sealing portion [0049, fig. 8 and 8a, Kruger], a second inner pipe extending outwardly from the first inner pipe in a stacking direction of the adjacent battery cell [0049, fig. 8 and 8a, Kruger], and an external connection pipe extending in fluid communication with the second inner pipe [0049, fig. 8 and 8a, Kruger].
Kruger discloses the cap containing a passageway allowing for a coolant to flow from an outlet of a first pipe and flows through a passageway in the cap to an inlet of the second pipe. This reads on the above claim limitation as the coolant must flow from the outlet to a first inner pipe (“heat dissipation member”) at the end of the heat dissipation member and extending into the body of the cap. The coolant would then flow to a second inner pipe (“heat dissipation member”) extending outward into the inlet of the next pipe
Modified Kim is silent to a body formed in a size and shape that can cover the first sealing portion of the battery cell.
However, Hong discloses an apparatus for cooling a pouch type battery assembly [abstract, 0007, Hong]. The sealing portion (13a) of the pouch is fixed between a frame and the frame is then connected to the neighboring batteries [0008, fig. 6, Hong]. The fixing of the sealing portion prevents arbitrary movement of the pouch battery due to external forces [0009, Hong]. The grooves further comprise an elastic packing member (15) that pressurizes the sealing portion inserter into the frame allowing for the sealing portion to be firmly fixed [0050-0051, Hong].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious for the guide block to contain a body portion that is formed in a size and shape that can cover the first sealing portion of the battery cell. By having a body portion formed to fit the size and shape of the first sealing portion can provide pressurization and stability to the sealing portion thereby fixing the battery and preventing unnecessary movement [0008, 0051, Hong].
The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill within the arts would further find it obvious to have “a body formed in a size and shape that can cover the first sealing portion of the battery cell. “ as this is a matter of changes in size/proportion and/or change in shape, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.);
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Kim such that the cap (“guide block”) of Kruger was changed such that the size and shape of the body was formed to cover the first sealing portion of the battery
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and claims 4 and 6 of the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Yoon ’996, Yoo, or Yoon ’666 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to Yoon ‘182 are in relation to its combination with Yoon ‘996. As such, these arguments are not persuasive as Yoon ‘996 is no longer relied upon.
The examiner maintains their rejection
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights