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 Amendment
The Amendment filed June 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 8 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20190059076 A), in view of Choi et al. (WO 2021241939 A1) and Yu et al. (WO 2021/129739 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches a secondary battery (Par. 0001) comprising: a case (case 130) having a hexahedral shape (Fig. 3a) with a vent (safety vent 134) in a long side surface thereof (Fig. 1a, the safety vent 134 is located on the long side of the case); an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 110) accommodated in the case; a cap assembly (Cap 140, Fig. 3a); and a retainer (retainer 170) between the electrode assembly and the case (Par. 0054, lines 1-2) and on a side surface area of the electrode assembly at where the negative electrode tab and the positive electrode tab are not formed (Fig. 3a; retainer is positioned on the side of the assembly, electrode terminals are on top of the battery), wherein the retainer is on a side surface of the electrode assembly corresponding to a position of the vent (Par. 0067, Fig. 2b, 3a). Jeong fails to teach a case with opposite ends in a longitudinal direction being open, positive electrode tabs at opposite ends of the case in the longitudinal direction, and a pair of cap assemblies coupled to both open ends of the case. Jeong rather teaches that both terminals are formed on a single cap assembly.
However, Choi teaches a secondary battery (Page 1, Par. 1) comprising: a case (case 50) having a hexahedral shape (Fig. 1) with opposite ends in a longitudinal direction being open (Page 3, Par. 12); an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 10) accommodated in the case and comprising a negative electrode tab (negative electrode tab 11b) at one end thereof in the longitudinal direction and a positive electrode tab (positive electrode tab 13b) at an opposite end thereof in the longitudinal direction (Page 2, Par. 4); and a pair of cap assemblies (cap assemblies 50 and 60) respectively electrically connected to the negative electrode tab and the positive electrode tab and respectively coupled to the open opposite ends of the case (Page 3, Par. 12; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by positioning the battery terminals on opposite ends of the battery, with a cap assembly on each terminal, as taught by Choi. This would be done to simplify the shape of the current collector and minimizing its length, while improving the degree of freedom of assembly and increasing battery length, as stated in Choi (Page 2, Par. 10-11).
Jeong also fails to teach the retainer having a plurality of degassing holes penetrating therethrough at a position corresponding to the vent. Jeong rather teaches only one through hole in the retainer at a position of the vent.
However, Yu teaches a secondary battery (Pg. 1, Par. 4, lithium-ion battery) comprising a case (cover sheet 110) having a vent (explosion-proof mounting hole 140), and a plate corresponding to a position of the vent (Fig. 2, insulating plate 400 has an explosion-proof valve hole 440 at a position directly below the vent; Pg. 4, Par. 6) which has a plurality of degassing holes penetrating therethrough at a position corresponding to the vent (Fig. 2; Pg. 12, Par. 3, “porous structure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retainer taught by Jeong by incorporating a plurality of degassing holes at a position of the vent, as taught by Yu. This would be done in order to protect the explosion-proof assembly, as stated by Yu (Pg. 7, Par. 7), and one of ordinary skill would have known that this would yield predictable results of reduced internal components exiting the battery case in the case of an explosion, while still allowing for pressure relief.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer has a degassing hole (through hole 171) penetrating therethrough at a position corresponding to the vent (Par. 0054, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jeong fails to teach the plurality of degassing holes covering an area larger than an area of the vent.
However, Yu teaches a retainer (insulating plate 400, Fig. 2; the plate is positioned inside the case on a surface of the electrode assembly) with a plurality of degassing holes (Fig. 2; explosion-proof valve holes 440) which cover an area larger than an area corresponding to the position of a vent (Fig. 2; valve holes extend past the area of the vent, designated as explosion-proof mounting hole 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retainer taught by Jeong by incorporating a plurality of degassing holes into the retainer in correspondence with the vent, as taught by Yu. Doing so would improve explosion-proof capabilities of the battery assembly, as stated in Yu (Page 7, Par. 7).
Claims 4-7 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of Choi and Yu, and further in view of Jeoung et al. (US 2015/0194639 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jeong fails to teach a sub-retainer in the secondary battery assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches a secondary battery (Abstract; Fig. 1), further comprising a sub-retainer (“sub-retainer” will be interpreted as a sheet positioned between the electrode assembly and the case for stabilization of the assembly; retainers 140) on a side surface of an electrode assembly at where a vent is not formed (Fig. 2; sub-retainers are positioned on the sides of the electrode assembly, and the vent is positioned on top of the battery module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating a set of secondary retainers on the sides of the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer is a sheet (Fig. 3a; Par. 0074, retainer has a flat portion and is primarily a flat sheet on the side of the module) and is attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0054; the retainer is fixed to the electrode assembly with the insulation tape). Jeong fails to teach sub-retainers, wherein the sub-retainers are sheets attached to the electrode assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches sub-retainers (retainers 140) as sheets (Fig. 2; retainers are flat, elongated sheets) which are attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0014; retainers prevent movement of the assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating sub-retainer sheets which are attached to the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer and sub-retainer are made of insulating material (Par. 0056; the polymers and rubber listed are not electrically conductive). Jeong fails to teach the sub-retainer being made of insulating material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that it would have been obvious to apply a known technique in insulation to the sub-retainer to yield predictable results of improved electrical interference prevention and thermal protection.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong fails to teach the retainer and sub-retainer having the same shape.
However, Jeoung teaches a retainer (bottom retainer 140) and sub-retainer (side retainers 140) having the same shape (Fig. 2; retainers 140 are thin, rectangular sheets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by forming the retainer and sub-retainer set in the same shape, as taught by Jeoung. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substituting retainers of different shapes for those with the same shape would have yielded predictable results of decreased production costs and reduced space inside the battery.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jeong fails to teach a sub-retainer in the secondary battery assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches a secondary battery (Abstract; Fig. 1), further comprising a sub-retainer (retainers 140) on a side surface of an electrode assembly at where a vent is not formed (Fig. 2; sub-retainers are positioned on the sides of the electrode assembly, and the vent is positioned on top of the battery module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating a set of secondary retainers on the sides of the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer is a sheet and is attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0054; the retainer is fixed to the electrode assembly with the insulation tape). Jeong fails to teach sub-retainers, wherein the sub-retainers are sheets attached to the electrode assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches sub-retainers (retainers 140) as sheets (Fig. 2; retainers are flat, elongated sheets) which are attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0014; retainers prevent movement of the assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating sub-retainer sheets which are attached to the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer and sub-retainer are made of insulating material (Par. 0056; the polymers and rubber listed are not electrically conductive). Jeong fails to teach the sub-retainer being made of insulating material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that it would have been obvious to apply a known technique in insulation to the sub-retainer to yield predictable results of improved electrical interference prevention and thermal protection.
Regarding claim 12, Jeong fails to teach the retainer and sub-retainer having the same shape.
However, Jeoung teaches a retainer (bottom retainer 140) and sub-retainer (side retainers 140) having the same shape (Fig. 2; retainers 140 are thin, rectangular sheets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by forming the retainer and sub-retainer set in the same shape, as taught by Jeoung. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substituting retainers of different shapes for those with the same shape would have yielded predictable results of decreased production costs and reduced space inside the battery.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of Choi and Yu, and further in view of Jeoung.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jeong fails to teach a sub-retainer in the secondary battery assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches a secondary battery (Abstract; Fig. 1), further comprising a sub-retainer (retainers 140) on a side surface of an electrode assembly at where a vent is not formed (Fig. 2; sub-retainers are positioned on the sides of the electrode assembly, and the vent is positioned on top of the battery module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating a set of secondary retainers on the sides of the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer is a sheet and is attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0054; the retainer is fixed to the electrode assembly with the insulation tape). Jeong fails to teach sub-retainers, wherein the sub-retainers are sheets attached to the electrode assembly.
However, Jeoung teaches sub-retainers (retainers 140) as sheets (Fig. 2; retainers are flat, elongated sheets) which are attached to the electrode assembly (Par. 0014; retainers prevent movement of the assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by incorporating sub-retainer sheets which are attached to the electrode assembly, as taught by Jeoung. Doing so would prevent movement of the electrode assembly inside the case, as stated in Jeoung (Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jeong teaches the secondary battery as stated above, wherein the retainer and sub-retainer are made of insulating material (Par. 0056; the polymers and rubber listed are not electrically conductive). Jeong fails to teach the sub-retainer being made of insulating material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that it would have been obvious to apply a known technique in insulation to the sub-retainer to yield predictable results of improved electrical interference prevention and thermal protection.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong fails to teach the retainer and sub-retainer having the same shape.
However, Jeoung teaches a retainer (bottom retainer 140) and sub-retainer (side retainers 140) having the same shape (Fig. 2; retainers 140 are thin, rectangular sheets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery taught by Jeong by forming the retainer and sub-retainer set in the same shape, as taught by Jeoung. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substituting retainers of different shapes for those with the same shape would have yielded predictable results of decreased production costs and reduced space inside the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12 with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Lee et al. (KR 20180091301 A). It is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Jeong, Choi, and Yu meets all the limitations of amended claim 1 and one of ordinary skill would have been properly motivated to make the combination.
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 CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights