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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4-5, it is suggested to amend “the other end” to - -another end- -.
In claim 10, it is suggested to amend “comprises expanded graphite” to - -further comprises expanded graphite- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-10 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 7 recites the limitation “a thermally expandable polymer compound”. It is not clear if “a thermally expandable polymer compound” is the same or different as the one previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a heat-shrinkable polymer compound”. It is not clear if “a heat-shrinkable polymer compound” is the same or different as the one previously recited in claim 1.
Claims 9-10 recites the limitation “the polymer compound”. It is not clear if this limitation corresponds to “a polymer compound layer”, “a thermally expandable polymer compound”, or “at least one heat-shrinkable polymer compound” recited in the claim 1.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230246273).
Regarding claims 1-2, Sasaki teaches a secondary battery (70) (paragraph [0087]) (see figure 1) comprising:
an electrode assembly (50) to which an electrode lead (60) is bonded (paragraph [0039]);
a pouch case (10) including a case body portion (see figure 1 below) (paragraph [0039]) accommodating the electrode assembly (see figure 1 below) in such a manner that a portion of the electrode lead protrudes externally, and a cover portion covering the case body portion (paragraph [0039]) (see figure 1); and
a sealing portion (see figure 1 below) in which outer circumferential portions of the case body portion and the cover portion of the pouch case contact each other (see figure 3) and are sealed by thermal fusion (i.e., heat sealed) (paragraph [0039]),
wherein a polymer compound layer (1) is attached on at least one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the electrode lead (60) protruding externally (paragraph [0039]) (see figure 1), and
the polymer compound layer includes a thermally expandable polymer compound of a composite of a hydroxy group-containing compound (i.e., polyurethane) (paragraph [0076]) and silica (paragraph [0071]-[0072]); or at least one heat-shrinkable polymer compound selected from the group consisting of polyphenylene ether (PPE), polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM) and polyamide (PA) (paragraph [0060]-[0062], [0139]).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the polymer compound layer (1) is formed on a portion or an entirety of a width of the sealing portion on the electrode lead (60) (as shown in figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4-5, Sasaki teaches the polymer compound layer (1) has one end located inside of the pouch case (10) and the other end located inside or outside of the sealing portion of the electrode lead (60) (as shown in figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
573
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki teaches a sealant layer (i.e., first resin layer or second resin layer) on at least one of the upper surface and the lower surface of the electrode lead (paragraph [0044]-[0047]) (see figures 2 and 7).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0246273).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches the polymer compound layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more (paragraph [0078]). It is noted that Sasaki differ in the exact same thickness range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the thickness range of Sasaki overlap the instant claimed thickness and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7-8, as indicated above Sasaki teaches the polymer compound includes polyurethane which is known to be a thermally expandable polymer and polycarbonate or polyamide which are known to be a heat shrinkable polymer. While Sasaki is silent with regards to the temperature of 80°C and an expandable rate of the thermally expandable polymer of 30 to 4000 times and a shrinkable rate of the heat shrinkable polymer of 0.02 to 0.9 times, it is noted that Sasaki teaches identical polymer compositions and structural components that govern thermal expansion or thermal shrinking. It is well known in the polymer-expansion or polymer-shrinking art that the magnitude of thermal expansion or shrinking depends predictably on routine parameters such as temperature and type of polymer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize these parameters to achieve a desired expansion or shrinkage at elevated temperatures such as 80° or higher and including the claimed 30-4000 range for expanding polyurethane or 0.02-0.9 range for shrinking polycarbonate or polyamide, because doing so yields predictable changes in expansion or shrinking behavior. Adjusting expansion or shrinking ratio is a common practice and well within the level of ordinary skill. Therefore, selecting and tunning the expansion or shrinking ratio to fall within the claimed range would have been nothing more than routine optimization, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230246273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perissok et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0002445).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki teaches the secondary battery as described above in claim 1 including the polymer compound layer comprising polyurethane.
Sasaki does not teach the specifics of the polymer compound layer in a form of beads, pillars, flakes, or powder.
Perissok, directed to thermally expandable polyurethanes (paragraph [0002]), teaches polyurethane in the form of beads. Perissok teaches the polyurethane in the form of beads has good performance in relation to elasticity and temperature variation and makes adhesive-bonding more effective (paragraphs [0007]-[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer compound layer comprising polyurethane of Sasaki in the form of beads in order to achieve good performance in relation to elasticity and temperature variation and increase effectiveness of adhesive-bonding as suggested by Perissok.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230246273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0212426).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches the secondary battery as described above in claim 1 including the polymer compound layer.
Sasaki does not teach the polymer compound layer comprises expanded graphite filled inside of the polymer compound.
Jang, also directed to a secondary battery (paragraph [0002]), teaches a protective graphite matrix that provides a cushioning effect for particle expansion or shrinkage (paragraph [0007], [0016]) comprising expanded graphite (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer compound of Sasaki to include expanded graphite in the polymer compound in order to provide a protective and cushioning effect in the polymer compound, as suggested by Jang.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/02239448). Yan teaches a polymer compound comprising at least one of polycarbonate and polyamide (paragraph [0010]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723