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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 7/22/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant has asserted that no claims must be withdrawn at this time, the examiner agrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20230043355-A1 (P).
Regarding claim 1, P teaches
A secondary battery (102) comprising: a case (200) having a vent (291) on one side (210); an electrode assembly ([0056] “electrode assembly”) in the case; a pair of terminals (110) coupled to respective sides of the case (see Fig. 2(a), the battery is a bipolar battery), and electrically connected to the electrode assembly; and a heat insulation member (270) coupled to a surface ([0161] “inner surface of the cell sleeve”) of the case (see Fig. 15(a)), and covering a region corresponding to the vent (270 spans the entirety of 210, so it must cover the region corresponding to the vent 291. This is further supported by [0184] which discusses the relationship between 291 and insulating material inside the cell sleeve 200).
Regarding claim 2, P teaches the vent is on a short side of the case between the terminals (210 is shorter than the sides 220/230).
Regarding claim 4, P teaches the heat insulation member is attached onto the surface of the case [0161].
Regarding claim 5, P teaches the heat insulation member is coupled to the surface of the case through an insulation film ([0161] heat resistant tape) positioned on the case.
Regarding claim 6, P teaches the heat insulation member further comprises an adhesive layer ([0161] adhesive applied to the surface) on a side facing the case (in order to adhere to the case it must have the adhesive on the case side of the ceramic sheet).
Regarding claim 7, P teaches the heat insulation member further comprises a stitch corresponding to the vent of the case ([0184], “perforation holes(s) 250”, “corresponding to the cut portion 291 or perforation hole(s) 250 of the cell sleeve 200”. Perforations meet the requirements for the stitches of the instant because it is stated in [0060] of the instant that the stitches may be perforations).
Regarding claim 8, P teaches the stitch matches within the region of the vent ([0184], “position or shape corresponding to”).
Regarding claim 9, P teaches the stitch comprises at least two lines that cross each other within the region of the vent ([0184], a perforation corresponding to the shape of 291 would have two lines that cross each other within the region of the vent).
Regarding claim 10, P teaches the stitch comprises a line along an outline of the vent ([0184] perforation corresponding the shape and position of 151 would form an outline of the vent).
Regarding claim 11, P teaches the stitch comprises perforations ([0184] 151 is specifically called perforations).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230043355-A1 (P) in view of US-20230318122-A1 (J).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of P are explained in the rejection of claim 1. P further teaches that 270 may be formed by a ceramic sheet having heat resistance or an insulating tape [0161].
P does not teach the heat insulation member comprises an insulating material containing MICA and is further silent to the material of 270.
J teaches a battery mono frame (12) with a mica sheet (17) fixed to it using double sided adhesive tape (30). J teaches the mica sheet has a venting portion (A) [0035]. J teaches the benefit of the mica sheet and adhesive tape arrangement is that the double-sided tape and mica sheet form a gas discharge path when the battery module reaches a set internal pressure and temperature to prevent damage [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the insulating member of P out of the adhesive tape and mica sheet of J in order to achieve the benefit of protecting the battery from overpressure and high temperature. It would have been obvious to do because P does not teach a specific material for the insulating tape and because J teaches a known material for an insulating tape with a vent with known benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights