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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 6A is missing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses a pouch-type secondary battery ([Abstract] fig. 1) comprising: an electrode assembly (Electrochemical cell (100) [0027], fig. 1); and a pouch case surrounding the electrode assembly (First pouch (140) [0027], fig. 1) , wherein at least three surfaces, among four surfaces of a side surface in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, include a sealed portion (First pouch (140) is completely sealed [0075]. Fig. 1. Which meets the limitation of at least three side surfaces include a sealed portion.), an electrode lead is drawn out from a sealed portion of at least one of the three sealed portions (at least one of the ACC 150 and CCC 160 can include a tab or tab connection (not shown) that acts as an electrical lead (or connecting point) to connect to one or more external electrical circuits. [0027], fig. 1. Where the tab acting as an electrical lead connected to an external circuit would meet the limitation of a lead drawn out.) , the pouch-type secondary battery includes a fire extinguishing device ((270a, 270b fig. 2 same as flame Retardant (170) [0100])) on the side surface an external surface of the pouch case ((240) [0100] fig. 2) in the thickness direction on a side surface of the pouch (fig. 2), and the fire extinguishing device sprays a fire extinguishing agent at a temperature greater than or equal to a reference point temperature. (The flame retardant 170 can produce a flame-smothering foam above a threshold temperature. [0029]. Where the production of a foam would include sprays.)
As to claim 2, Chen discloses the fire extinguishing device is on the side surface in the thickness direction having the sealed portion. (Flame retardant (170) can coat 100% of the outside surface first pouch (140) [0036]. Where 100% of the outside surface would include the side surface in the thickness direction having a sealed portion.)
As to claim 3, Chen discloses the fire extinguishing device is on the side surface in the thickness direction from which the electrode lead is drawn out. (Flame retardant (170, 270) as described in ¶ [0100], fig. 2 being equivalents covers a side surface in a thickness direction where the lead is drawn out [0101]. Fig. 2, further as 100% of the outside surface of (140, 240) is covered by (170,270) would meet the limitation.
As to claim 7, Chen discloses the temperature greater than or equal to the reference point temperature is 100°C to 150°C. (75° C., at least about 150° C [0034]) Which overlaps the claimed range, and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 8, Chen discloses the fire extinguishing agent is in the form of a gel or a powder. (The flame retardant material can include a flame retardant powder [0017])
As to claim 9, the rejections of claim 8 is incorporated, Chen discloses the fire extinguishing agent being in the form of a powder is at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) (the flame retardant powder can include sodium bicarbonate [0017]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al.(US2010/0047685A1).
As to claim 4, Chen discloses a sealed portion of a side surface in the thickness direction from which the electrode lead is not drawn out is covered with the fire extinguishing device (Flame retardant (170) can coat 100% of the outside surface first pouch (140) [0036]. Where 100% of the outside surface would include the side surface in the thickness direction where the lead is not drawn out having a sealed portion.) However Chen does not explicitly disclose the fire extinguishing device is on the side surface in the thickness direction where the lead is not drawn out having a sealed portion is folded
In the same field of endeavor Lee discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches The side sealing portion 230 is vertically bent such that the sealing portion 230 is brought into tight contact with the receiving part 240 of the lower case member 220, after the battery case 200 is sealed by the thermal welding, to reduce the overall size of the secondary battery 200. [0052]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Chen with the folded sealing parts as taught by Lee to reduce the overall size of the battery and increase the number of marketable applications based on size.
As to claim 5, Chen discloses the fire extinguishing device (170) covers the outside surface of the pouch (140) but does not explicitly teach the pouch case has a connection portion connecting a body portion and a cover portion, the three surfaces among the four surfaces of the side surface in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly include a sealed portion sealing the electrode assembly by edges of the body portion and the cover portion bonded to each other, and the connection portion is positioned on a remaining surface,
In the same field of endeavor Lee discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches a connection portion “lower end of the Lower case member (220),” is integrally connected to a cover type upper case member (210) [0052], fig. 4, and a sealing portion 230 is formed along the outer circumferential part of the battery case 200 such that the upper case member 210 and the lower case member 220 are brought into contact with each other, and therefore, the battery case 200 is sealed by thermal welding, during the assembly of the secondary battery 200 [0052]. Thereby meeting the limitation the three surfaces among the four surfaces of the side surface in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly include a sealed portion sealing the electrode assembly by edges of the body portion and the cover portion bonded to each other, and the connection portion is positioned on a remaining surface. Where the extinguishing device (170) covers the outer surface of the pouch (140) provides a fire extinguishing device on a side surface in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly on the connection portion.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim et al.(US2025/0183424A1, with foreign priority date of 10/08/2021).
As to claim 6, Chen does not explicitly disclose the fire extinguishing device has a thickness of 100 μm to 500 μm. In the same field of endeavor Kim discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches battery case (20) may include an extinguishing coating layer (204) [0044].. the thickness of the extinguishing coating layer 204 may be approximately 1 mm or less [0069]. Which overlaps the claimed range, and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al.(WO2021246756A1).
As to claim 10, Chen does not explicitly disclose the fire extinguishing device include: a base film; a core-shell particle on a surface of the base film and including a shell; and a fire extinguishing agent included in the shell.
In the same field of endeavor Lee, discloses a battery [0502] and teaches, the fire extinguishing device (Fire extinguishing device (30) [0144]) include: a base film [0206-0210]; a core-shell particle (Microcapsule 40 of fire extinguishing device 30 [0152-0153]) on a surface of the base film [0206-0207] and including a shell (Microcapsule 40 has a core 41-shell 42 structure [0154]); and a fire extinguishing agent included in the shell (core ( 41) contains 80 to 97% by weight of an extinguishing agent. [0154-0155] Lee further teaches, it is an object of the present invention to provide a fire extinguishing device that provides excellent ductility and thermal insulation, thereby preventing a chain explosion of a secondary battery in a battery pack, thereby helping to prevent and extinguish a fire. [0100-0102]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Chen with the fire extinguishing device as taught by Lee to prevent and extinguish fires and improve battery safety.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, modified Chen discloses, as taught by Lee the shell (Shell (42)) melts (the shell 42 may be ruptured due to the phase change [0379-0380]) and sprays the fire extinguishing agent (The shell 42 of the fire extinguishing microcapsule 40 included in the fire extinguishing device 30 is softened by external heat, and the fire extinguishing agent is explosively ejected from the fire extinguishing microcapsule 40 by the vaporization energy of the fire extinguishing agent [0451-0453]) at the temperature greater than or equal to the reference point temperature. (The fire can be quickly suppressed by the extinguishing agent in the 454 microcapsule 40 for extinguishing at a specific temperature or higher. [0454-0455])
Claim 11 is/are considered product-by-process claim which recites “sprays”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
As to claim12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, modified Chen as taught by Lee the shell (42) is formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane (PU) and polyurea [0384].
As to claim 13, modified Chen discloses a shell and teaches a thickness of the shell (42) is in a range of 50 to 2000nm. Regarding limitation of the shell thickness of 10 μm to 20 μm, it has been held “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1) as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Lee et al.(WO2021246756A1), and further in view of Koh et al. (US2018/0331386A1).
As to claim 14, modified Chen discloses the core-shell particle (Lee, microcapsule (40) [0397]) but silent on the core-shell particle has diameter of 10 μm to 50 μm.
In the same field of endeavor Koh discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches, a lithium ion battery including a core-shell structured fire extinguishing particle is disclosed. [Abstract]… the fire extinguishing particle may have a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm. [0023], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US2022/0052403A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoon et al. (KR20180113809A).
As to claim 15, Chen discloses fire extinguishing device (Flame retardant (170) [0027]) but is silent on the device includes: a sealed envelope-type film; and the fire extinguishing agent filled in the envelope-type film. In the same field of endeavor Yoon discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches a sealed envelope-type film (The extinguishing member 200 may include a case 210 of a tube or a pouch [0036]); and the fire extinguishing agent filled in the envelope-type film (Extinguishing material 220 accommodated in the case 210. [0036]). Yoon further teaches (Present invention can prevent the explosion or fire of the battery cell 110a when the battery cell 110a is overcharged. [0047])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Chen with the envelope-type film as taught by Yoon to prevent explosion of the cell when overcharged.
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, modified Chen discloses, the envelope-type film melts and sprays the fire extinguishing agent at the temperature greater than or equal to the reference point temperature. (In this regard, the case 210 may be made of a material having a different melting point so that a predetermined portion of the case 210 may be ruptured after being melted at a high temperature that may occur when the battery cell 110a is overcharged. For example, the entire case 210 is made of a material having a high melting point. When the battery cell 110a is overcharged due to overcharging, the portion where the fire extinguishing material 220 is to be sprayed [Yoon, 0037]
Claim 16 is/are considered product-by-process claim which recites “sprays”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
As to claim 17, Chen discloses the first pouch material (140) may include polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) [0080-0083], and regarding the limitation, the envelope-type film is formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), it has been held the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore it would be obvious for Yoon to include polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) as exemplified in paragraph [0026] in the instant specification, because in the combination with Chen teaches polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) may be used as a pouch material, and Yoon only requires the material of case (210) be made of a material that can rupture at high temperature or high pressure [0036].
As to claim 18, modified Chen discloses, the case 210 may be provided so that the thickness of one portion of the case 210 is different from that of the other portion so that the case 210 can be ruptured by pressure (X portion fig. 4, [0039]). Therefore it would be obvious to arrive at the thickness as claimed to ensure the x portion ruptures, and “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 10, Chen fails to disclose or suggest every element of the claimed invention. In particular, Chen does not disclose or suggest that the fire extinguishing device is located on a side surface of an external surface of the pouch case in the thickness direction. The office respectfully disagrees as Chen discloses flame retardant (270a, b) on the side surface of pouch (240), where (270) is the same as (170) [0100], and flame retardant material 170 can coat a top side and a bottom side of the first pouch 140 [0036] as shown in fig. 2.
Applicant argues, pages 10-11, Chen provides no rationale to attach a fire extinguishing device to a dead space. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Dead space) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further as exemplified by the instant specification in paragraph [0075] “The dead space may be an empty blank region not contributing to storage of energy.” The exterior of pouch (240) meets this definition.
Applicant argues, pages 11-12, the position of the flame retardant of Chen would not correspond to the location as indicated by applicant’s annotated fig. 2 of Chen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
309
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The office respectfully disagrees as Chen provides the flame retardant coating (170) may cover a 100% of the top side and bottom side [0036] which would include the sealed region as described above in applicant’s annotated fig. 2 of Chen. Further it is noted the region applicant illustrates above in annotated fig. 2 of Chen is not explicitly claimed.
Applicant argues, pages 12-13, removing Chen’s second pouch would render Chen’s flame retardant mechanism inoperable. The office respectfully disagrees as Chen’s flame retardant may be a powder of sodium bicarbonate [0033] as exemplified in the instant specification paragraphs [0017-0018], and “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”, MPEP 2112.01 (II) Therefore in absence of Chen’s second pouch the sodium bicarbonate of Chen would behave the same as the sodium bicarbonate as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights