DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0102018, filed on 8/16/2022.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1 and 5-18 are pending, and claims 2-4 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended following the non-final dated 2/27/2026. Claims 5-18 are as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are not persuasive for the reasons highlighted herein and previously stated on the record.
5. Regarding claim 1, applicant amended claim 1 by adding in limitations not originally present in the claim. The added limitations were originally presented in claims 2 through 4, and thus had support in the original disclosure. Applicant states the protective members are configured such that “an inner surface of the protective member corresponds to and contacts the vertex of the electrode assembly; and an outer surface of the protective member has a curved shape contacting the exterior material”, with the aims of protecting the vertices of the electrode assembly, and alleviating stress applied to the exterior materials (pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Response to Arguments/Remarks).
6. Applicant argues that MacLean (US-20040067416-A1), the art of record, does not teach these limitations, stating that MacLean “merely discloses a frame surrounding corners and edges of the electrode assembly” (pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s Response to Arguments/Remarks) and does not teach “an inner surface having a shape corresponding to the vertex of the electrode assembly or […] an outer surface having a curved shape contacting the exterior material” (page 9 of the Applicant’s Response to Arguments/Remarks). Additionally, Applicant argues that, “Even if the frame of MacLean surrounds the outer corner of the electrode assembly, the frame merely extends along the outer edge of the electrode assembly and does not structurally modify the contact configuration between the sharp vertex and the exterior material” and “the radius described by MacLean merely relates to edge finishing of the frame for preventing tearing of the laminate package material”. (page 10 of the Applicant’s Response to Arguments/Remarks) Additionally, Applicant argues that, due to the amendment made to claim 1, the remaining claims (5-18) are patentable over the prior art.
7. Regarding Claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments presented by the Applicant. The added limitations in claim 1 had a basis in MacLean, which were argued in the original rejections of claims 2 through 4.
8. The first added limitation added, “an inner surface of the protective member contacts with a vertex of the electrode assembly” is depicted in Figures 2, 4, and 9 of MacLean. Figures 4 and 9 depicts this most clearly, where the interior portion of the protective member is shown to meet at a point, which fully accommodates the rectangular vertices of the electrode assembly. Figure 5 depicts that the protective member of MacLean contacts the exterior laminate packaging material, which teaches the second added limitation “wherein an outer surface of the protective member contacts the exterior material”.
9. The third added limitation, “wherein the inner surface of the protective member comprises a shape corresponding to the vertex,” is similarly taught in Figures 2,5 and 9 of MacLean. The vertex of the rectangular electrode assembly is covered fully by the protective members that, as seen in Figure 9, has an inner surface configured to accommodate the vertex of a rectangular prism.
10. The fourth added limitation is stated to be “wherein an outer surface of the protective member comprises a curved shape”. The instant specification contains a special definition of “a curved shape”, on page 9, paragraph 53 of the instant specification, being defined as “description that an outer surface 22-2 of the protective member 22 comprises a curved shape means that the outer surface 22-2 of the protective member 22 that is in contact with the exterior material 21 has a bended shape without being angulated”. The examiner interprets this definition to mean that the curved shape can be bended such that it does not result in the formation a point, vertex, or an edge. This broadest reasonable interpretation of this would cover rounded edges; the examiner has provided examples below in Examiner Figure 1 depicting examples of what is believed to be curved (the two species on the right) and not curved (the two species on the left) under this definition.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 1
11. MacLean teaches on page 2, paragraph 21, that “[t]he corners and edges of the cell support can have, but need not have, a curved radius to prevent tearing of the laminate packaging material”. This is sufficient to teach the instant limitation, as, by having a rounded corner or edge, the frame of MacLean would have a surface that does not come to a point, vertex or edge, which matches the broadest reasonable interpretation of the curved surface utilized in the instant application.
12. While the implementation of the proactive members of instant application are visually different than those depicted in the disclosure of MacLean, MacLean does teach that that the protective frame can comprise as little of one edge protector (Claim 2) or as little as one corner protector (Claim 3). The intention of MacLean is to provide a frame that to protect the corners and edges of the electrode assembly from bending from, for example, mechanical shock, while using a thin of an exterior material as possible ([0018]). Additionally, MacLean acknowledges that, by including curved corners and edges to the frame, it can prevent tearing of the laminate material ([0021]). The examiner respectfully maintains that, by providing rounded edges to prevent the tearing of the exterior material (which MacLean states could be the result of mechanical shock or vacuum sealing the battery cell, [0018]) MacLean functionally teaches a manner to alleviate stress on the exterior material that could result in a puncture, tear or other damage to the exterior material. Therefore, despite attempting to solve a different problem than the instant disclosure, MacLean’s disclosure anticipates the instant limitations as currently worded, in addition to the instant motivation. For the reasons provided above and for the reasons of record, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1 and 5-18 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
13. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “a curved shape”, as written in claims 1 and 10, is read from the special definition listed in page 9, paragraph 53 of the instant specification.
14. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “integrally formed”, as written in claim 8, is interpreted in line with the special definition outlined on page 12 and paragraph 60 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1, 5, 7-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacLean (US-20040067416-A1; henceforth, MacLean).
18. Regarding claim 1, MacLean teaches a secondary battery (an electrolytic cell, Page 1, paragraph 6) comprising an electrode assembly (an assembly of electrolytic stackable cells, page 1, paragraph 5), an exterior member accommodating the electrode assembly, and a protective member disposed inside the exterior material and surrounding a vertex of the electrode assembly (see Figures 2 and 5, reproduced below), wherein an inner surface of the protective member contacts with a vertex of the electrode assembly (the outer areas that are specifically protected by the protective barrier include the edges and corners of the stackable cell, page 2, paragraph 19; also see Figure 2, below) , wherein an outer surface of the protective member contacts with the exterior material (the laminate packaging material (e.g., foil 60) would be wrapped and sealed around the protective frame including the cell stack, page 2, paragraph 25; also see Figure 5, below), wherein an inner surface of the protective member comprises a shape corresponding to the vertex (see Figures 2, 4 and 9, below. Figure 9 depicts rectangular corner, matching the shape of the electrode assembly of 4), and wherein an outer surface of the protective member comprises a curved shape (The corners and edges of the cell support can have, but need not have, a curved radius to prevent tearing of the laminate packaging material, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
1190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from MacLean.
PNG
media_image3.png
363
1258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4, reproduced from MacLean.
PNG
media_image4.png
758
1105
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, reproduced from MacLean.
PNG
media_image5.png
806
1009
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 9, reproduced from MacLean.
19. Regarding claim 5, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the protective member comprises at least one among a thermoplastic resin, a thermosetting resin, a rubber resin, a non-conductive metal alloy, and a non-conductive ceramic (materials that would be suitable for use in constructing a light, strong cell-protecting frame may be: polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof, page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). The examiner notes the list includes thermoplastic resins, thermosetting resins and rubber resins.
20. Regarding claim 7, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a plurality of edges (See Figures 2 and 5, reproduced above; the electrolytic stacked cells, element 60, is a rectangular parallelopiped structure, which has several well-defined edges), and wherein the secondary battery further comprises a supplementary member surrounding at least one edge among the plurality of edges (Figures 2, 5 and 9, reproduced above. The frame, element 10, extends along all the edges of the electrolytic stacked cells, element 50. As shown in Figure 9 (reproduced above), the frame may be composed of multiple members).
21. Regarding claim 8, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the protective member and the supplementary member are integrally formed (the protective frame may be constructed as a unitary piece that protects each edge and corner of the cell stack, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21; In Figure 2, annotated below, the corner of the frame constitutes a protective member disposed inside the external material (as shown in Figure 5) surrounding the vertex of the electrode assembly (The assembly of claim 1 wherein the frame comprises at least one corner protector, claim 3). This corner is composed of 3 edges meeting, each edge constituting a supplementary member that surrounds the edge of the electrode assembly (the assembly of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises at least one edge protector, claim 2). Since the edge and corner protectors of MacLean make up the frame and can be a unitary piece, as shown in Figures 2 and 9, they are integrally formed).
PNG
media_image6.png
782
1369
media_image6.png
Greyscale
22. Regarding claim 9, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein an inner surface of the supplementary member comprises a shape corresponding to the edge ("the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21; also see Figure 9, reproduced above).
23. Regarding claim 10, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein an outer surface of the supplementary member comprises a curved shape (The corners and edges of the cell support can have, but need not have, a curved radius to prevent tearing of the laminate packaging material, page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
24. Regarding claim 13, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 60)).
25. Regarding claim 14, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 50)).
26. Regarding claim 15, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the width direction of the electrode assembly and an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 60)).
27. Regarding claim 16, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly and an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 50)).
28. Regarding claim 17, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the supplementary member comprises at least one among a thermoplastic resin, a thermosetting resin, a rubber resin, a non-conductive metal alloy, and a non-conductive ceramic (materials that would be suitable for use in constructing a light, strong cell-protecting frame may be: polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof, page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). The examiner notes the list includes thermoplastic resins, thermosetting resins and rubber resins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uh (US- 7951485-B2; henceforth, Uh) and Kaneda (US-6743546-B1, henceforth Kaneda).
33. Regarding Claim 6, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, where the protective member is made out of a transparent material. The intention of using the transparent material is to ensure the vertex of the electrode assembly properly lies within the protective member (page 10, paragraph 55, lines 7-10).
34. Regarding claim 6, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1. MacLean additionally teaches suitable materials for use in constructing the light, strong cell-protecting frame including polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof (page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
35. MacLean does not explicitly teach the use of transparent materials in the construction of the protective frame. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
36. Uh teaches a lithium rechargeable battery that includes an insulating case, an electrode assembly, and an outer can (page 4, paragraph 15 and page 7, paragraph 38; Figure 6, annotated below). Uh teaches the insulating case may be made out of a polymer resin with insulating properties, including polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, or modified polyphenylene oxide (page 11, paragraph 50). Specifically, Uh teaches that polyethersulfone has superior transparent characteristics and superior mechanical strength (page 11, paragraph 50).
PNG
media_image7.png
766
639
media_image7.png
Greyscale
37. However, Uh does not teach a motivation for the use of a transparent insulating case.
38. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
39. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the components taught by MacLean and the materials of the transparent insulating case of Uh, from the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with a frame surrounding the electrode assembly, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the material used in the protective frame taught by MacLean for the material of the insulation cover one taught by Uh is a simple substitution using materials and components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the frame would not change. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
40. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Harutyunyan (US-20200243807-A1; henceforth, Harutyunyan) and Kaneda.
41. Regarding Claim 11, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the width of the supplementary member is within a range of 5 mm to 50 mm.
42. MacLean teaches the secondary battery of claim 7 (see above). MacLean also teaches that the frame encasing the stacked electrolytic assembly can have length and width dimensions of 40 and 42 in, respectively (Figure 9), and the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs (page 2, column 2, paragraph 21). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
43. However, MacLean does not teach that the components of the frame have the dimensions of 5 to 50 mm. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
44. Harutyunyan teaches a flexible battery composed of an electrode assembly within a polymer pouch cell whose dimensions can range from 0.01 mm to 10 mm thick and 0.1 to 10000 mm in length and width (page 5, column 1, paragraph 40). Since the pouch cell has a thickness of 0.025 mm to 0.040 mm (page 4, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 36), the electrode assembly has appreciably the same dimensions of the battery.
45. Harutyunyan does not teach using a frame around the electrode assembly to prevent the sharp edges and corners of the electrode assembly from puncturing the pouch cell.
46. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
47. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the electrode assembly of Harutyunyan from the same field of endeavor and the casings of either Kaneda or MacLean to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the electrode assembly of MacLean with the one taught by Harutyunyan is a simple substitution using components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the battery would not change. Since MacLean teaches the size and shape of the frame can be modified to accommodate the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to use supports with the range of 5 to 50 mm. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
48. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Busacca et al. (US-202031346-A1; henceforth Busacca) and Kaneda.
49. Regarding claim 12, the instant claim teaches a secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein an angle formed by the protective member and the supplementary member is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees.
50. MacLean teaches the secondary battery of claim 7 (see above). MacLean also teaches that a frame encasing a rectangular parallelepiped-shaped stacked electrolytic assembly (Figure 9), and the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs (page 2, column 2, paragraph 21). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
51. However, MacLean does not teach the angle formed by the protective member and the supplementary member is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
52. Busacca teaches secondary batteries utilizing various shapes of electrode assemblies, including pentagonal and hexagonal prisms (page 30, paragraph 104; Figure 3d-e, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image8.png
572
1195
media_image8.png
Greyscale
53. Busacca does not teach using a frame around the electrode assembly to prevent the sharp edges and corners of the electrode assembly from puncturing the pouch cell.
54. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
55. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a battery utilizing the electrode assembly of Busacca from the same field of endeavor and the casings of either Kaneda or MacLean to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the electrode assembly of MacLean with the one taught by Busacca is a simple substitution using components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the battery would not change. Since MacLean teaches the size and shape of the frame can be modified to accommodate the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to make a frame with internal angles ranging from 90 to 180 degrees to accommodate the pentagonal and hexagonal electrode assemblies taught by Busacca. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
56. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Uh and Kaneda.
57. Regarding Claim 18, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, where the supplementary member is made out of a transparent material. The intention of using the transparent material is to ensure the vertex and edge of the electrode assembly properly lies within the protective members (page 14, paragraph 66, lines 9-12).
58. Regarding claim 6, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7. MacLean additionally teaches suitable materials for use in constructing the light, strong cell-protecting frame including polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof (page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
59. MacLean does not explicitly teach the use of transparent materials in the construction of the protective frame. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
60. Uh teaches a lithium rechargeable battery that includes an insulating case, an electrode assembly, and an outer can (page 4, paragraph 15 and page 7, paragraph 38; Figure 6, annotated version reproduced above). Uh teaches the insulating case may be made out of a polymer resin with insulating properties, including polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, or modified polyphenylene oxide (page 11, paragraph 50). Specifically, Uh teaches that polyethersulfone has superior transparent characteristics and superior mechanical strength (page 11, paragraph 50).
61. However, Uh does not teach a motivation for the use of a transparent insulating case.
62. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
63. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the components taught by MacLean and the materials of the transparent insulating case of Uh, from the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with a frame surrounding the electrode assembly, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the material used in the protective frame taught by MacLean for the material of the insulation cover one taught by Uh is a simple substitution using materials and components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the frame would not change. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
Conclusion
64. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR-20200102261-A (Henceforth, Gyu).
65. Gyu teaches a deformation preventing structure added to the outer surface of an electrode assembly (Abstract). Figures 2-5 depict various structures similar to that taught by MacLean, wherein a multipiece protective member configuration surrounds the corners and edges of the electrode assembly, inside a battery case (Abstract and Figure 1).
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.
66. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
67. 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.
68. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
69. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights