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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For further clarification, arguments pertaining to the use of carbon fiber are moot because I is instead applied in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection where no motivation to combine is needed and therefore no argument of material compatibility needs to be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20190280253-A1 (I), with support from INEOS, Typical Engineering Properties of Polypropylene (Year: 2014) and ZOLTEK, Carbon Fiber SDS (Year: 2025).
Regarding claim 1, I teaches a pouch-type secondary battery (10) comprising: a pouch-type battery case (30); a sealing part ([0026], “thermal fusion resin layer”) configured to be heat-sealed in a state of accommodating an electrode assembly [0077]; and a cover member (41A/B) positioned between an at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly and the pouch-type battery case (see Fig. 8B, where the shorter sides of 20 are the thickness sides), wherein the cover member is disposed on the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (Fig. 8B, which is the embodiment that is being used as reference for this rejection), wherein the at least one thickness side extends in a stacking direction of the electrode assembly (Fig. 6 shows the stacking direction is perpendicular to the long faces of the electrode assembly, so the thickness sides extend in this direction because they are also perpendicular to the long faces), wherein the cover member extends along the sealing part (the sealing part is taught to be a thermal fusion layer which is placed on a side of 30A/30B facing the electrode assembly [0026], so the cover member must extend along the sealing part because the sealing part is on the interior of the cases 30A/30B), and wherein the cover member includes a heat-resistant polymer material (carbon fiber [0020]) having a melting point higher than a thermal compression temperature of the sealing part (the sealing part is formed from materials that may be polypropylene or polyethylene. INEOS teaches that polypropylene has a melting point of 143-151°C (page 2) and ZOLTEK teaches that carbon fiber has a decomposition point at about 3500°C (page 6). Therefore, the melting point of the carbon fiber is higher than the melting point of the sealing member.).
Regarding claim 6, I teaches the cover member is in contact with the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 7, I teaches the cover member completely covers the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 8B, taken together teaching that the carbon fiber sheet extends along the long side of the electrode body (Fig. 6) and covers the thickness side completely (Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 9, I teaches a width of the cover member is greater than a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction, and wherein the cover member is configured to be bent at opposing ends of the cover member, so as to form a U-shape surrounding the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly [0105], and so as to be positioned between the at least one thickness side and the pouch-type battery case (see Fig. 6, position for embodiment in Fig 8B is still the same, between the case and the electrode body).
Regarding claim 10, I teaches the electrode assembly is a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (see Fig. 6).
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, 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190280253-A1 (I), INEOS, ZOLTEK, and in further view of US-20170358783-A1 (K).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of I are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
I further teaches the pouch-type battery case has one accommodating part (31).
I does not teach a pair of accommodating parts.
K teaches a pouch type battery case (200) with a pair of accommodating members (210, 220), wherein each of the pair of accommodating parts has an indent (see Fig. 3) configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (230), wherein the pouch-type battery case is configured to be bent along a bending line (see dotted line on annotated Fig. 3 below) so that each of the pair of accommodating parts are symmetrically positioned with respect to one another; and a sealing part (223) is disposed along an outer periphery of the pair of accommodating parts except for a periphery of the bending line (see Fig. 3, because there is little to no lip between the indent and the folding line, there is no sealing part there because the sealing part is only the lip).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the pouch type battery case of I in the shape of K because doing so would amount to no more than substituting one form of a pouch type battery case for another with a reasonable chance of success. A further reason for obviousness would be that this is a change of form or shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of I are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
I further teaches the pouch-type battery case has one accommodating part (31).
I does not teach a pair of accommodating parts.
K teaches a pouch type battery case (200) with a pair of accommodating members (210, 220), wherein each of the pair of accommodating parts has an indent (see Fig. 3) configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (230), wherein the pouch-type battery case is configured to be bent along a bending line (see dotted line on annotated Fig. 3 below) so that each of the pair of accommodating parts are symmetrically positioned with respect to one another; and a sealing part (223) is disposed along an outer periphery of the pair of accommodating parts except for a periphery of the bending line (see Fig. 3, because there is little to no lip between the indent and the folding line, there is no sealing part there because the sealing part is only the lip).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the pouch type battery case of I in the shape of K because doing so would amount to no more than substituting one form of a pouch type battery case for another with a reasonable chance of success. A further reason for obviousness would be that this is a change of form or shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The above modification meets the claim requirements of the sealing part being disposed along the outer periphery of the pair of accommodating parts, where each of the accommodating parts has an indent which houses the electrode body.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190280253-A1 (I), INEOS, ZOLTEK, and in further view of US-20170149027-A1, KANG.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of I are explained in the rejections of claims 1 and 7.
I additionally teaches a width of the cover member is greater than a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction (evidenced by Fig. 8B, where the cover member wraps around 3 sides fully and one side partially, meaning it is longer than a thickness side of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction).
KANG teaches the cover member is provided to prevent the case (110) from wrinkling [0067] and to reduce the amount of electrolyte needed [0068]. KANG shows in Fig. 6 an alternative embodiment of the cover member (290 here) where a component of the cover member (293) which has an I shape (note the parts which extend in a stacking direction on either side of the electrode assembly 150, and the portion that is more flush with 150, forming the I shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify the cover member of I to have the geometry of the cover member of KANG in order to achieve the benefit of reducing the amount of electrolyte needed and preventing wrinkling of the case during assembly.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights