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, see Remarks, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bahar et al. (US Patent No. 5,635,041).
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.
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, 4-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP-2018160405A) in view of Bahar et al. (US Patent No. 5,635,041).
Regarding Claim 1, Koji et al. reference discloses a battery comprising:
a housing comprising an opening (Figure 1, numerals 20 – casing, 21A - opening);
a positive electrode that is at least partially disposed within the housing (Figure 1, numeral 32 – positive electrode and Paragraph [0023]);
a negative electrode that is at least partially disposed within the housing (Figure 1, numeral 34 – negative electrode and Paragraph [0023]);
an electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraphs [0014] and [0018]– electrolytic solution); and
at least one densified expanded polymer membrane covering the opening of the housing, wherein the electrolyte is configured to release at least one gas during operation of the battery (Figure 2, numeral 500 - gasket and Paragraphs [0024], and [0026]),
wherein the at least one gas is chosen from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Hydrogen (H2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Methane (CH4) or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0027]); and
wherein the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a CO2 permeability greater/higher than the water vapour permeability (Paragraphs [0034]-[0037] – increasing the exposed area inside the battery of the gasket, it is possible to increase the amount of permeation of gas such as carbon dioxide gas generated inside the battery to the outside of the battery). Koji does not disclose that the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a CO2 permeability to the water vapour permeability ratio of more than 0.5 and wherein the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane comprises polytetrafluoroethylene and has a crystallinity of 75% to 100% . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio for the CO2/water permeability, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Bahar et al. reference discloses a composite membrane comprising an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane having a porous microstructure of polymeric fibrils (Column 2, Lines 43-45) and having a crystallinity of at least 98% (Column 4, Lines 14-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane as taught by Bahar et al., since Bahar et al. states at Column 2, Lines 35-37 that such a modification would have long term chemical and mechanical stability.
Regarding Claim 4, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane comprises a copolymer (Bahar et al. –Column 10, Lines 51-63 - perfluorosulfonic acid/tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)/copolymer and Examples 1-23).
Regarding Claim 5, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 except for the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a CO2 permeability to water vapour permeability ratio of more than 0.55. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio for the CO2/water permeability, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 except for the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a CO2 permeability to water vapour permeability ratio of more than 1.0. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio for the CO2/water permeability, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 7, Koji and Zhang et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 except for the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a density of 0.8 g/cm3 to 2.4 g/cm3 . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least one densified expanded polymer membrane having a density of 0.8 g/cm3 to 2.4 g/cm3, since Bahar et al. states at column 11, lines 20-23 that such a modification would ePTFE membranes can be made with a wide range of physical property values, with ranges far exceeding the two examples given (Column 11, Lines 11-18).
Regarding Claim 8, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane is sintered (Bahar et al. – Column 6, Lines 28-29 – placed in an oven to dry).
Regarding Claim 9, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the battery is a secondary battery (Koji - Abstract – secondary battery).
Regarding Claim 10, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 9, wherein the secondary battery is a lithium-ion battery (Koji - Abstract – nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery).
Regarding Claim 18, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 except for the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a density of from 1.9 g/cm3 to 2.3 g/cm3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least one densified expanded polymer membrane having a density of 0.8 g/cm3 to 2.4 g/cm3, since Bahar et al. states at column 11, lines 20-23 that such a modification would ePTFE membranes can be made with a wide range of physical property values, with ranges far exceeding the two examples given (Column 11, Lines 11-18).
Regarding Claim 19, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has been expanded below its melting temperature and, after expansion, densified by compression (Bahar et al. – Column 4, Lines 14-46).
Regarding Claim 20, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 including the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane has a CO2 permeability greater/higher than the water vapour permeability (Koji - Paragraphs [0034]-[0037] – increasing the exposed area inside the battery of the gasket, it is possible to increase the amount of permeation of gas such as carbon dioxide gas generated inside the battery to the outside of the battery). However, neither Koji nor Bahar et al. reference discloses that the densified expanded PTFE provides the CO2 permeability to water vapour permeability ratio of more than 0.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio for the CO2/water permeability, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP-2018160405A) in view Bahar et al. (US Patent No. 5,635,041) and Shen et al. (CN-202888289U).
Regarding Claim 11, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 including an insulating layer except for the battery comprises a composite vent covering the opening of the housing, the composite vent comprising the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane and at least one additional membrane, the at least one additional membrane being located between the housing and the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane. Shen et al. reference discloses a new-type lithium battery composite membrane, the composite membrane comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, micro-porous, polyimide modified membrane, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane is provided with a micro-hole, polyimide modified membrane provided lower surface on the polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, polyvinylidene fluoride is the polyimide modified membrane outer surface. polyimide modified membrane of the utility model of new lithium battery composite separator by polytetrafluoroethylene microporous film with high temperature resistance is set, and polyvinylidene fluoride with over-charging performance, improves the overall performance of the lithium battery, the lithium battery is stable and safe work (Koji - Abstract and Figure 1, numerals 1 - polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, 2- polyimide modified membrane, and 3-polyvinylidene fluoride). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery with composite vent layer as taught by Shen et al., since Shen et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would improve the overall performance of the lithium battery, wherein the lithium battery is stable and safe work.
Regarding Claim 12, Koji, Bahar et al., and Shen et al. references discloses the battery of claim 11, wherein at least one additional membrane comprises a porous fluoropolymer (Shen et al. – Figure 1 and Paragraph [0009] - PTFE).
Regarding Claim 13, Koji, Bahar et al., and Deng et al. references discloses the battery of claim 12, wherein the porous fluoropolymer is expanded PTFE (Shen et al. – Figure 1 and Paragraph [0009] - PTFE).
Regarding Claim 14, Koji, Bahar et al., and Deng et al. references discloses the battery of claim 11, wherein the composite vent comprises an intermediate layer located between the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane and the at least one additional membrane (Shen et al. – Figure 1, numerals 2 and 3 and Paragraph [0009] - PVDF).
Regarding Claim 15, Koji, Bahar et al., and Deng et al. references discloses the battery of claim 14, wherein the intermediate layer comprises a perfluoropolymer selected from fluorinated ethylene propylene polymer (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA), a terpolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride (THV), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) (Shen et al. – Figure 1, numerals 2 and 3 and Paragraph [0009] - PVDF).
Regarding Claim 16, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1, including an insulating layer except for the battery comprises a composite vent covering the opening of the housing, the composite vent comprising the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane and at least one additional membrane, the at least one additional membrane being located between the housing and the at least one densified expanded polymer membrane. Shen et al. reference discloses a new-type lithium battery composite membrane, the composite membrane comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, micro-porous, polyimide modified membrane, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane is provided with a micro-hole, polyimide modified membrane provided lower surface on the polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, polyvinylidene fluoride is the polyimide modified membrane outer surface. polyimide modified membrane of the utility model of new lithium battery composite separator by polytetrafluoroethylene microporous film with high temperature resistance is set, and polyvinylidene fluoride with over-charging performance, improves the overall performance of the lithium battery, the lithium battery is stable and safe work (Koji - Abstract and Figure 1, numerals 1 - polytetrafluoroethylene microporous membrane, 2- polyimide modified membrane, and 3-polyvinylidene fluoride). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery with composite vent layer as taught by Shen et al., since Shen et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would improve the overall performance of the lithium battery, wherein the lithium battery is stable and safe work.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP-2018160405A) in view Bahar et al. (US Patent No. 5,635,041) and Zhang et al. (WO-2020/067161 A1)
Regarding Claim 17, Koji and Bahar et al. references discloses the battery of claim 1 except for at least one separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. Zhang et al. reference discloses a high-strength separator for a power storage device has a degree of cross-sectional crystal orientation of 0.85 or above (Abstract) wherein the separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (Page 11, “Power storage device” section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separator in between the positive and negative electrodes as taught by Zhang et al., since Zhang et al. states at Page 11, “Power storage device” section that such a modification would be used in an electricity storage device as a power storage device.
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 HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights