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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/29/2024, 03/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 4-5, 18 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the adhesive film is attached to the housing, a portion of the adhesive film attached to the housing has a width of W, and 0.2 mm≤W≤2 mm”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which requires “the second metal sheet is disposed between the adhesive film and the housing, the second metal sheet is welded to the housing, and the second metal sheet is provided with a second through hole.” Therefore it is unclear if the adhesive film is attached to the housing indirectly via the second metal sheet, in which case the entirely of the adhesive would be considered as attached to the housing, or if claim 2 intends for the adhesive to be directly attached to the housing without the second metal sheet. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is rejected at least by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the third adhesive layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Multiple adhesive layers are not required until claim 8. Claim 18 depends from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20210043902 A1) .
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches a pressure relief mechanism ([0101]; [0114]; Fig.8; [0128]-[0129]); wherein the pressure relief mechanism comprises an adhesive film, a first metal sheet disposed on a side of the adhesive film, and a second metal sheet disposed on a side of the adhesive film facing away from the first metal sheet (Fig. 8; [0101]-[0105]; [0114]-[0116]; [0128]-[0129]; element 15 corresponds to a first metal sheet; element 131 corresponds to a second metal sheet, and element 132 corresponds to an adhesive); the pressure relief mechanism is configured to be relieve pressure of a battery cell ([0101]-[0103]); wherein a melting point of the adhesive film is within a range of 80° C. to 200° C ([0116]).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 3-6, 7, 19-20, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 20220216566 A1) hereinafter "Jackson" in view of Zhu et al. (US 20120040215 A1) hereinafter “Zhu”.
Regarding claim 1, Jackson teaches a battery cell, comprising: a housing, wherein the housing is provided with a first through hole; and a pressure relief mechanism covering the first through hole (Fig. 7, 11A-B; [0058]; [0047]; [0009]); wherein the pressure relief mechanism comprises an adhesive film, a first metal sheet, and a second metal sheet (Fig. 13; element 40 corresponds to first metal sheet, element 12 corresponds to second metal sheet; element 130 corresponds to adhesive layer; [0062] polyethylene membrane with adhesive backing; [0069]; [0054]-[0055]; [0072]); the second metal sheet is disposed between the adhesive film and the housing, and the second metal sheet is provided with a second through hole (Fig. 12 element 33; [0072]-[0076]). Jackson teaches where the second metal sheet is fastened to a battery case via fasteners([0025]; Fig. 13; [0039]; [0051]; [0072]). Jackson teaches where the first metal sheet and second metal sheet may be spot welded to each other ([0069]). Jackson teaches that a sealed device includes internal components such as cathodes, anodes, and electrolyte ([0065]).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation “the adhesive film is configured to be heated and melted to form a pressure relief channel connecting the inside and outside of the housing” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Jackson teaches an adhesive layer (element 14 composed of polyethylene and adhesive) which is capable of melting when heated and when melted would connect the inside and outside of the housing, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Jackson does not teach where the second metal sheet is welded to the housing.
However, Zhu teaches a battery cover plate provided with a first through hole and a safety vent welded to the cover plate ([0046]-[0053]).
Welding is a known way of attaching a safety vent structure to a metal housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have attached the pressure relief mechanism taught by Jackson via welding as taught by Zhu.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have attached the pressure relief mechanism taught by Jackson via welding as taught by Zhu with a reasonable expectation of successfully attaching the pressure relief mechanism because welding is an art recognized method for attaching safety vents.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Jackson teaches wherein the housing comprises a bottom wall and a plurality of side walls surrounding the bottom wall; the battery cell further comprises a terminal (Fig. 7; [0065]; terminal corresponds to post).
Jackson does not teach where the pole and the first through hole are provided on one of the plurality of side walls.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the pressure relief mechanism such that it was located on the same wall as the terminal. Rearrangement of parts is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Jackson teaches that the rupture disc diameter can be selected based on desired rupture pressure threshold ([0048]). Jackson teaches wherein the adhesive layer is indirectly attached to the housing ([0011]; [0051]).
Jackson is silent as to the width of a portion of the adhesive film attached to the housing.
However modifications in size are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably select an attached portion with a width of, for example, 0.5mm. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Jackson teaches wherein the first metal sheet is circular, and the adhesive film is circular or annular (Fig. 13; [0073]; annular breathable membrane 130).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the first through hole is circular, a diameter of the first metal sheet is equal to an outer diameter of the adhesive film, and the diameter of the first metal sheet is greater than a diameter of the first through hole (Fig. 13; [0072]-[0073]; [0051]; Fig. 8-9).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Jackson teaches that the rupture disc diameter can be selected based on desired rupture pressure threshold ([0048]). Jackson further teaches a circular venting structure (Fig. 13 and 7).
Jackson is silent as to the diameter of the first through hole.
However modifications in size are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably select a first through hole size, for example a first through hole with a diameter of 1mm. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 25, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. The limitation "configured to supply electric energy" is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The battery cell taught by Jackson is capable of supplying electric energy ([0044]-[0046]; [0082]; [0009]) thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 20220216566 A1) in view of Zhu (US 20120040215 A1), as applied above, in further view of Zhou et al. (US 20210074961 A1) hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1.
Modified Jackson is silent as to the location of an electrolyte injection hole.
However, Zhou teaches a battery cap assembly wherein a vent is disposed on the cap assembly and covers and liquid injection hole ([0056]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure relief structure taught by modified Jackson to cover an electrolyte injection hole as taught by Zhou.
One of ordinary skill in the art could utilize the pressure relief structure taught by modified Jackson to cover an electrolyte injection hole as taught by Zhou because it is known in the art to apply a pressure relief structure to an electrolyte injection hole. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to simply the cover structure.
Claim(s) 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20220216566 A1) in view of Zhu (US 20120040215 A1), as applied above, in further view of Eguchi et al. (US 20230048086 A1) hereinafter “Eguchi”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 6. Jackson teaches wherein the adhesive film comprises a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer, wherein the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are stacked ([0062]; [0072]; the polyethylene layer and the pressure adhesive layer read on “first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer”).
Jackson does not teach wherein the second adhesive layer is located on a side of the first adhesive layer facing away from the housing, and a melting point of the first adhesive layer is lower than a melting point of the second adhesive layer.
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the first and second layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents excessive melting and thinning of the adhesive layer ([0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components.
Regarding claims 9-12, modified Jackson in view of Eguchi teaches the battery cell according to claim 8. Eguchi further teaches wherein the melting point of the first layer is 60° C. to 150° and the melting point of the second layer is 155° C. to 250° C ([0047]). The range of melting points taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges of claims 9-12. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Jackson in view of Eguchi teaches the battery cell according to claim 9. Eguchi teaches a three-layer adhesive film wherein a melting point of the outer adhesive layers is lower than the melting point of the middle adhesive layer ([0047]). Eguchi teaches wherein the melting point of the outer layers (first and third layer) is 60° C. to 150° ([0047]). The melting point range taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges in claims 14-15. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claims 16-18, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1.
Modified Jackson is silent as to the thickness of the adhesive layers.
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the first and second layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents excessive melting and thinning of the adhesive layer ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches wherein the thicknesses of the first insulating layer and the third insulating layer of the multilayer film used for the insulating material may be the same or different but are each 10 μm to 100 μm (0.01mm-0.1mm), while the thickness of the second insulating layer is 10 μm to 100 μm (0.01-0.1mm)1,2 ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components. Further, the thickness ranges taught by Eguchi overlaps with the ranges claimed in claims 16-18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20220216566 A1) as evidenced by Interface Science and Composites, Volume 18.
Regarding claim 21, Jackson teaches a pressure relief mechanism comprising an adhesive film, a first metal sheet disposed on a side of the adhesive film, and a second metal sheet disposed on a side of the adhesive film facing away from the first metal sheet (Fig. 13; element 40 corresponds to first metal sheet, element 12 corresponds to second metal sheet; element 130 corresponds to adhesive layer; [0062] polyethylene membrane with adhesive backing; [0069]; [0054]-[0055]; [0072]) wherein the pressure relief mechanism is configured to relieve pressure of a battery cell ([0041]-[0046]). Jackson teaches a polyethylene membrane with adhesive backing ([0062]; [0072]).
Jackson does not explicitly disclose wherein a melting point of the adhesive film is 100°C–130°C.
However, the layer 14 or 130 taught by Jackson (Fig. 6B) comprises polyethylene and an adhesive ([0062]; [0072]). The polyethylene melts at 105-130℃ depending on the grade (See Interface Science and Composites, Volume 18 pp. 476). Therefore, the layer 14 or 130 meets the limitation of “wherein a melting point of the adhesive film is 100-130℃).
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20220216566 A1) as evidenced by (Interface Science and Composites, Volume 18), as applied above, in further view of Eguchi et al. (US 20230048086 A1) hereinafter “Eguchi”.
Regarding claims 22-23, Jackson teaches the pressure relief mechanism according to claim21.
Jackson does not teach wherein the adhesive film comprises a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer, wherein the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are stacked, the second adhesive layer is located on a side of the first adhesive layer back away from the housing, and a melting point of the first adhesive layer is lower than a melting point of the second adhesive layer.
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the outer layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin while the inner layer has a higher melting point ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents excessive melting and thinning of the adhesive layer ([0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the adhesive layer taught by Jackson for the adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components.
Regarding claim 24, Jackson in view of Eguchi teaches the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 23. Eguchi teaches a three-layer adhesive film wherein the melting point of the outer layers is 60° C. to 150° and melting point of the inner layer is 155° C. to 250° C ([0047]). The melting point range taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges in claim 24. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Alternate Rejection
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20210043902 A1) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Huang et al. (US 20210036285 A1) hereinafter “Huang”.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a battery cell, comprising: a housing, wherein the housing is provided with a first through hole; and a pressure relief mechanism covering the first through hole ([0097] the cover plate 11 covers a first through hole i.e. the opening in case 2; [0101]-[0102]; cover plate 11 has a pressure relief mechanism i.e. gas vent 112); wherein the pressure relief mechanism comprises an adhesive film, a first metal sheet, and a second metal sheet (Fig. 8; [0101]-[0105]; [0114]-[0116]; [0128]-[0129]; cover 11 corresponds to a first metal sheet; element 15 corresponds to a second metal sheet, and element 132 corresponds to an adhesive); the adhesive film is configured to be heated and melted to form a pressure relief channel connecting the inside and outside of the housing ([0101]-[0103]); the first metal sheet being disposed on a side of the adhesive film facing away from the housing; the second metal sheet is disposed between the adhesive film and the housing, and the second metal sheet is provided with a second through hole (Fig. 8 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
456
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not specify how the second metal sheet is attached to the housing.
However, Huang teaches a cap plate assembly with a pressure relief mechanism wherein the cap plate is connected to the case body by welding ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the second metal sheet taught by Zhang to the housing via welding as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art could attach the second metal sheet taught by Zhang to the housing via welding as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of successful attachment because welding is known in the art as a conventional method of attaching metal components.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Zhang further teaches the wherein the first through hole is an electrolyte injection hole ([0097] the cover plate 11 is fixed to the opening of the case 2, thereby making the electrode assembly 3 and the electrolyte be enclosed in the receiving cavity of the case 2; the opening in the housing reads on electrolyte injection hole).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein the housing comprises a bottom wall and a plurality of side walls surrounding the bottom wall; the battery cell further comprises a pole, and the pole and the first through hole are provided on one of the plurality of side walls (Fig. 1-2; Fig. 3 and 8; [0097]; [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein the first metal sheet is circular, and the adhesive film is circular or annular ([0116]; Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210043902 A1) in view of Huang (US 20210036285 A1), as applied above, in further view of Eguchi (US 20230048086 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhang teaches modified Zhang teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Zhang teaches that an adhesive layer (fixing part) is formed of polypropylene or polyethylene ([0116]).
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the outer layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents allows for different layers to melt at different temperatures ([0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components.
Regarding claims 9-12, modified Zhang in view of Eguchi teaches the battery cell according to claim 8. Eguchi further teaches wherein the melting point of the outer layers is 60° C. to 150° and the melting point of the inner layer is 155° C. to 250° C ([0047]). The range of melting points taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges of claims 9-12. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Zhang in view of Eguchi teaches the battery cell according to claim 9. Eguchi teaches a three-layer adhesive film wherein a melting point of the outer adhesive layers is lower than the melting point of the middle adhesive layer ([0047]). Eguchi teaches wherein the melting point of the outer layers (first and third layer) is 60° C. to 150° ([0047]). The melting point range taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges in claims 14-15. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claims 16-18, modified Jackson teaches the battery cell according to claim 1.
Modified Zhang is silent as to the thickness of the adhesive layers.
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the first and second layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents excessive melting and thinning of the adhesive layer ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches wherein the thicknesses of the first insulating layer and the third insulating layer of the multilayer film used for the insulating material may be the same or different but are each 10 μm to 100 μm (0.01mm-0.1mm), while the thickness of the second insulating layer is 10 μm to 100 μm (0.01-0.1mm)3,4 ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components. Further, the thickness ranges taught by Eguchi overlaps with the ranges claimed in claims 16-18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210043902 A1), as applied above, in further view of Eguchi (US 20230048086 A1).
Regarding claims 22-23, Zhang teaches the pressure relief mechanism of claim 21.
Zhang does not teach wherein the adhesive film comprises a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer, wherein the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are stacked, the second adhesive layer is located on a side of the first adhesive layer back away from the housing, and a melting point of the first adhesive layer is lower than a melting point of the second adhesive layer.
However, Eguchi teaches a multilayer adhesive comprising a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer wherein the outer layers are made of low melting point resin such as polyolefin-based resin while the inner layer has a higher melting point ([0047]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component is used for attaching components in a battery cell assembly ([0047]-[0049]). Eguchi teaches that a multilayer sealing component prevents excessive melting and thinning of the adhesive layer ([0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the polyolefin fixing part taught by Zhang for the polyolefin based multi-layer adhesive layer taught by Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of attaching components to each other because a multilayer adhesive structure is known in the art for use in attaching battery components. Further, both components are formed of a polyolefin-based resin.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Eguchi teaches the pressure relief mechanism according to claim 23. Eguchi teaches a three-layer adhesive film wherein the melting point of the outer layers is 60° C. to 150° and melting point of the inner layer is 155° C. to 250° C ([0047]). The melting point range taught by Eguchi overlaps with the claimed ranges in claim 24. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 Three layers at, for example 0.1mm thickness each, equates to an adhesive layer with a thickness of 0.3mm.
2 In the case where the first and third layers are 30µm and the second layer is 90µm results in a ratio of 1:3:1
3 Three layers at, for example 0.1mm thickness each, equates to an adhesive layer with a thickness of 0.3mm.
4 In the case where the first and third layers are 30µm and the second layer is 90µm results in a ratio of 1:3:1
Prosecution Insights