DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 7/6/2026:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, and 13-14 have been amended and Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are cancelled,
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Some rejections under prior art have been overcome by the amendment and some rejections are modified to reflect changes in the claims. A rejection of Claim 9 under Cho was accidentally omitted from the previous Office action, but Claim 9 is rejected herein under Cho, and so this correspondence is non-final. All claims are rejected under previously relied-upon prior art.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
5. Claims 1 3-4, 6, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US PG Publication 2012/0156551, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Komaki JP2009-009734.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8, Cho discloses a secondary battery 100 comprising an electrode assembly 110, a first battery case (metal layer) 213 that houses the electrode assembly and a second battery case (PE layer of outside layer) 225 (first and second cases being formed of different materials, meeting Claim 8) that houses the first battery case 213 (see annotated Fig. 8 below), wherein the second battery case 225 has a different color from that of the first battery case 213, since e.g. the first battery case 213 is metal and is typically silver, while any other layer that is disposed outside of 213 can be a different color, such as a color complementary to that of a colored first battery case 213, further comprising a groove D1 that is part of a spaced-apart plurality of grooves D1/D2 (meeting Claims 3 and 4) is formed in the second battery case (see annotated Fig below) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-10; paras 0067, 0070-0096). Cho discloses wherein the different color cases are visible based on defect grooves D1/D2 that can be formed in upper layers (Figs 7-8, paras 0060-0096) but Cho fails to specifically disclose wherein during an expansion of the secondary battery, a portion of the second battery case in which the groove is formed is configured to rupture. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery housing design, Komaki teaches that forming grooves 1a in an outer casing (label) 1 can show when a battery is swelling since a slit-shaped tear 1b occurs along the cut groove, and that this allows for visual inspection of the cell’s exposure to show swelling abnormalities/battery degradation before the battery ruptures and is easily controlled via changing depth and length of grooves, for example (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0011-0016, 0019, 0022, and associated Figs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery of Cho such that during an expansion of the secondary battery, a portion of the second battery case in which the groove is formed is configured to rupture because Komaki teaches that designing a battery to have grooves configured to tear/rupture (thereby exposing differently colored layer or layers below) to form slits when the battery expands because this allows for visual inspection of the cell’s exposure to show swelling abnormalities/battery degradation before the battery ruptures, and is easily controlled via changing depth and length of grooves. Cho modified by Komaki teaches that grooves tear as the battery swells/expands, to expose underneath layers having a different color as an indicator, and the skilled artisan would understand that as the tearing occurs to expose the first battery case of Cho and Komaki, the groove would extend into and connect to the first battery case 213 as the second battery case ruptures and when the second battery case ruptures (meeting Claim 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
599
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Komaki’s structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
657
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Cho discloses a method of manufacturing a secondary battery comprising the steps of housing an electrode assembly in first battery case 113/213 (see Fig 1; para 0069; “The electrode assembly 110 may be disposed in an inside region A of the packing case 200.”) and wherein a second battery has a color different from that of first battery case (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Cho does not specifically recite a step of covering the first battery case in which the electrode assembly is housed with a second battery case. However, Komaki teaches that the multi-layer housing having first and second battery cases is formed via a step of wrapping/covering a second battery case (label) 1 around the first battery case (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0011-0016, 0019, 0022, and associated Figs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the secondary battery of Cho modified by Komaki such there is a step of covering the first battery case in which the electrode assembly is housed with the second battery case because Komaki teaches that this provides the arrangement of the second battery case on the first battery case. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Cho modified by Komaki discloses wherein during expansion of the secondary battery, a portion of the second battery case in which the groove is formed is ruptured because (as explained above) Komaki teaches that designing a battery to have grooves configured to tear/rupture (thereby exposing differently colored layer or layers below) to form slits when the battery expands because this allows for visual inspection of the cell’s exposure to show swelling abnormalities/battery degradation before the battery ruptures, and is easily controlled via changing depth and length of grooves.
Regarding Claim 12, Cho modified by Komaki discloses the claimed secondary battery, as explained in the rejection above, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Cho discloses that the technology being improved upon by the invention is in the field of batteries used in electronic devices (para 0005) and so while Cho doesn’t specifically disclose a device comprising the secondary battery, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the battery of Cho in a device because Cho teaches that this is the intended purpose of the battery and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13, Cho discloses wherein a portion of the secondary battery case in which the groove is formed has a thickness less than a thickness of other portions of the secondary battery (see Figs) since the depth of the groove decreases the thickness of the secondary battery case.
Regarding Claim 14, the skilled artisan would expect that in the process of the battery of Cho modified by Komaki expanding, as grooves further tear to form slits in order to allow the battery to expand, the exposed area of the first battery case would necessarily increase as the cells are exposed through the gap.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The rejection over Komaki in view of Cho is withdrawn in light of arguments.
7. Applicant argues that Cho’s sub-layer cannot be considered a second battery case to Cho’s metal sub-layer as the first battery case.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that under broadest reasonable interpretation, different layers of a laminate housing can be interpreted as first and second cases. Applicant has provided no evidence as to the impropriety of this interpretation, and Applicant has no special definition of first and second cases that preclude such an interpretation. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, such an argument is not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights