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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1, “a PET” should read “the PET”.
Claim 4, line 2, “a nylon” should “the nylon”.
Claim 14, line 1, “a cell pouch” should read “the cell pouch”.
Claim 14, line 2, “an outer layer” should read “the outer layer”.
Claim 14, line 2, “a barrier layer” should read “the barrier layer”.
Claim 14, line 2, “a sealant layer” should read “the sealant layer”.
Claim 14, line 2, “an inner layer” should read “the inner layer”.
Claim 14, line 3, “an PET” should read “the PET”.
Claim 14, line 3, “an nylon” should read “the nylon”.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “a moisture permeation amount is 115 ppm or less as measured by the following method.” However, the scope of the claim is confusing given that no method is recited regarding how to measure the moisture permeation amount.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the film has the following tensile strength, elongation at break, and puncture strength properties when a specimen of the cell pouch films is evaluated by a universal testing machine (UTM) under a load (N/15 mm).” However, the scope of the claim is confusing given that no values are recited regarding the tensile strength, elongation at break, and puncture strength.
Claims 2-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (EP 4095991 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4:
PNG
media_image1.png
510
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. teaches in Fig. 2 above a pouch type battery case which includes a pouch film laminate, i.e. cell pouch film, structured in an order, including a surface protection layer 1353, i.e. outer layer, a gas barrier layer 1352, and a sealant layer 1351 that is an innermost layer ([0010] lines 3-4, [0049]).
Kim et al. also teaches a surface protection layer formed of a second polymer that is an outermost layer ([0010] line 4). Furthermore, the second polymer may include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0019]), and the surface protection layer may have a thickness of 6 µm to 25 µm ([0018]).
Additionally, Kim et al. teaches the pouch film laminate may include a drawing assistance layer 1354 which is formed of a third polymer and is laminated between the surface protection layer and the gas barrier layer. Furthermore, the drawing assistance layer may have a thickness of 20 µm to 50 µm; Also, the third polymer may include nylon, i.e. the outer layer is composed of PET film of 6 to 25 µm outside and nylon film of 20 to 50 µm inside ([0020], [0021], [0022]).
Kim et al. also teaches a gas barrier layer laminated between the surface protection layer and the sealant layer, where it is formed of an aluminum alloy film having a thickness of 60 pm to 100 pm ([0010] lines 4-6).
Further, Kim et al. teaches a thickness of the sealant layer, i.e. inner layer, may be in a range of 30 µm to 90 µm ([0016]).
Although Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose a moisture permeation amount is 115 ppm or less as measured by the following method, given that Kim et al. discloses a cell pouch film as presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the moisture permeation amount would inherently be 115 ppm or less as measured by the following method.
In light of the overlap between the claimed cell pouch film and that disclosed by Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cell pouch film that is both disclosed by Kim et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Although Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose a tensile strength, elongation at break, and puncture strength when the specimen of the cell pouch films is evaluated by a UTM under a load (N/15 mm), given that Kim et al. discloses a cell pouch film as presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the tensile strength, elongation at break, and puncture strength when the specimen of the cell pouch films is evaluated by a UTM under a load (N/15 mm) would inherently have the following values.
Regarding claim 6-7:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Although Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose a tensile strength in the MD direction is 220-250N/15 mm, elongation at break in the MD direction is 60-90%, tensile strength in the TD direction is 230-260N/15 mm, and elongation at break in the TD direction is 70 to 90%, given that Kim et al. discloses a cell pouch film as presently claimed and discloses the tensile strength is 200 N/15mm to 300 N/15mm ([0078] lines 2-6), within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the tensile strength in the MD direction would inherently be 220-250N/15 mm, elongation at break in the MD direction would be 60-90%, tensile strength in the TD direction would be 230-260N/15 mm, and elongation at break in the TD direction would be 70 to 90%.
Regarding claim 8:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Further, Kim et al. teaches the pouch film laminate according to the present invention may have a puncture strength of 30 N or more, for example, 30 N to 40 N ([0079] lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Although Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose a stiffness in the MD direction and TD direction is 900 N/15 mm or more, given that Kim et al. discloses a cell pouch film as presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the stiffness in the MD direction and TD direction would inherently be 900 N/15 mm or more.
Regarding claim 10:
PNG
media_image2.png
348
1369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
PNG
media_image3.png
239
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Kim et al. teaches in Table 2 above a forming depth, i.e. formability, between 8.5 mm to 15.5 mm ([0092]) when the cell pouch includes PET film having a thickness of 12 µm and nylon film of 25 µm (Table 1 above).
Regarding claim 11:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Further, Kim et al. teaches there is a pouch type secondary battery including an electrode assembly therein and a pouch type battery case accommodating the electrode assembly, i.e. a secondary battery externally enclosed with the cell pouch film ([0025] lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 12:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Further, Kim et al. teaches an electrolyte solution is to move lithium ions which are generated by an electrochemical reaction of the electrode during charge and discharge of the secondary battery, wherein it may include a non-aqueous organic electrolyte solution, which is a mixture of a lithium salt and high purity organic solvents, or a polymer using a polymer electrolyte, i.e. the secondary battery is a lithium secondary battery ([0047] lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 13:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Further, Kim et al. teaches secondary batteries are applied and used in large products requiring high output, such as electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, and a power storage device, i.e. energy storage device, for backup which stores surplus generated power or renewable energy ([0003]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the secondary battery in an electric vehicle or energy storage device since secondary batteries for uses as outlined by Kim et al. are conventionally provided in an electric vehicle or energy storage device.
Alternatively, the recitation in the claims that the secondary battery is “for an electric vehicle or an energy storage device” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Kim et al. disclose a secondary battery as presently claimed, it is clear that the secondary battery of Kim et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for an electric vehicle or an energy storage device, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14:
Kim et al. teaches a cell pouch film as set forth above.
Although Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the cell pouch film is prepared by lamination, given that Kim et al. discloses a cell pouch film as presently claimed that is described as a “laminate” ([0023]), it is clear that the cell pouch film would inherently be prepared by lamination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights