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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al (US20130171483A1, hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses a battery case (Shibata, Fig.1, 21), comprising: a battery case cover (Shibata, Fig.1, 3); and a gas adsorber including a gas adsorption pack (Shibata, Fig.1, 13) received within the battery case (Shibata, [0047], “…capsule-type gas absorber 13, which contains gas-absorbent material, is housed within battery case 3…”), wherein the gas adsorption pack is configured to open when an internal pressure of the case increases (Shibata, [0055], “…in the event that temperature and/or pressure rise due to production of gas at the interior of battery case 3, because capsule 5 will melt at a prescribed temperature, spread of gas-absorbent material 6 within the interior of battery case 3 will make it possible for the gas to be absorbed”).
The instant specification paragraph [0072] states that an example of a gas adsorbent molecular sieve maybe include zeolite. Shibata discloses that zeolite may be used as their gas-absorbent material (Shibata, [0023]). It is therefore assumed that the zeolite gas-absorbent material also reads upon the instant claim as being a gas adsorber.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Shibata also discloses wherein the gas adsorber is coupled to an inner wall of the battery case cover (Shibata, Fig.1, 13).
The position of element 13 (gas adsorber) in figure 1 of Shibata shows that it is coupled to an inner wall of the battery case cover.
Regarding claim 11, Shibata discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Shibata also discloses wherein the gas adsorption pack comprises one or more of an olefin-based resin, a fluorine-based resin, or a polyamide-based resin (Shibata, [0049], “…as such hot-melt resin, polyethylene, polyolefinic resin… may, for example, be used.”).
The instant specification paragraph [0084] discloses that polyethylene is an olefin-based resin.
Regarding claim 14, Shibata discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Shibata also discloses a secondary battery, comprising: the battery case according to claim 1; an electrode assembly accommodated inside the battery case; and an electrolyte disposed inside the battery case (Shibata, Abstract, “…Secondary battery 21 is provided with case 3 in which positive electrode 10 and negative electrode 11 are sealed together with electrolyte”).
Regarding claim 15, Shibata discloses all of claim 14 as shown above. Shibata also discloses wherein, in the secondary battery, the gas adsorption pack is blocked from outside air (Shibata, [0055], “…in the event that temperature and/or pressure rise due to production of gas at the interior of battery case 3, because capsule 5 will melt at a prescribed temperature, spread of gas-absorbent material 6 within the interior of battery case 3 will make it possible for the gas to be absorbed”).
Shibata discloses that the gas is adsorbed when the capsule melts, implying that the capsule is not permeable to gas and is therefore inherently blocked from outside air.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US20130171483A1, hereinafter Shibata) in view of Sun et al (US20230065566A1, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 16, Shibata discloses all of claim 14 as shown above. However, Shibata does not disclose the secondary battery as a pouch-type battery. Sun discloses a secondary battery (Sun, [0066]) with an electrode assembly and electrolyte disposed inside (Sun, [0068]). Sun also discloses a capsule structure formed on the housing of said battery with an accommodation cavity inside (Sun, [0007]). Said accommodation cavity storing materials such as gas absorbents (Sun, [0035]). The capsule is ruptured due to internal pressure of the battery increasing (Sun, [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the pouch-type battery structure of Sun with the secondary battery structure of Shibata because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 (B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US20130171483A1, hereinafter Shibata) in view of Li et al (US20210126298A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 17, Shibata discloses all of claim 14 as shown above. However, Shibata does not disclose the gas adsorption pack as open. Li discloses a solid gas adsorbent positioned adjacent to an electrode assembly in a battery (Li, [0008]). Li discloses the solid adsorbent being a compound (Li, [0005]), inherently a compound is “open” as this is taken to mean not having an encapsulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the solid adsorbent of Li with the gas adsorber of Shibata because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of the reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the battery case according to claim 1, wherein the gas adsorber comprises the gas adsorption pack and a piezoelectric element, wherein the gas adsorption pack includes a gas adsorbent, and wherein the piezoelectric element is configured to bend when the internal pressure increase, so as to penetrate the gas adsorption pack.
The closest pertinent art is Shibata (US20130171483A1), Lee (US20210013473A1), Sun (US20230065566A1), and Yoon (US20060246345A1). Shibata discloses a secondary battery (Shibata, Fig.1, 21) with a gas adsorber disposed inside (Shibata, Fig.1, 13). The gas adsorber comprises a capsule and material inside, the capsule is configured to melt when the internal pressure/temperature of the battery increases above a threshold allowing gas to be adsorbed (Shibata, [0055]). Shibata does not disclose any piezoelectric element used to penetrate said gas adsorber.
Lee discloses a piezoelectric element used to penetrate a pouch-type battery to discharge gas from a battery case to prevent explosion (Lee, [0028] and [0018]). Lee does not disclose an internal gas adsorber and the penetration of said gas adsorber to allow gas internal to the battery to be adsorbed.
Sun discloses a secondary battery with internal capsules configured to hold materials such as a gas absorber (Sun, [0035]). The internal capsule is weakened and configured to rupture when the internal pressure of the battery increases (Sun, [0070]). Sun does not disclose the capsule containing a gas adsorber nor that the capsule ruptures due to penetration of piezoelectric element.
Yoon discloses a piezoelectric sensor mounted in between unit cells of a secondary battery. When the unit cells expand for any reason, this is translated to the piezoelectric sensor which generates a voltage which is sent to the battery management system (Yoon, [0019]). Yoon does not disclose further using this signal sent from the piezo electric sensor to puncture an internal pack with gas adsorber.
None of the above-mentioned references nor any of their combinations anticipate or make obvious the inclusion of a piezoelectric element to penetrate an internal gas adsorber structure and allow for gas generated by the battery to therefore be adsorbed.
For the reasons outlined above, claim 2 has been found to indicate allowable subject matter.
Claims 3-5, 7-10, and 12-13 also indicate allowable subject matter due to their dependence on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights