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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 09/18/2025. Claim 1 has been amended, and claims 8 and 9 are new support for the amendments can be found in the specification and the original claims. No new matter has been entered. Claims 2-7 stand as originally or previously presented. Claims 1-9 remain pending in this office action. The 35 USC 103 rejections of the prior office action are withdrawn because of the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as below set forth.
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 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20130099892 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent), in view of Matsukawa (JP 2017206777 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent) and Fukuoka (US 20170133648 A1), and further in view of You (US 20100266881 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 8, Lee discloses a battery case for a secondary battery ([0028] discloses a pouch 100 which reads on the claimed battery case, see also fig. 1), the battery case comprising:
a cup part provided with an accommodation space ([0028] discloses a receiving portion 122 which reads on the claimed cup part provided with an accommodation space, see also fig. 1) configured to accommodate an electrode assembly ([0028] discloses that the cup part/receiving portion 122 is capable of receiving an electrode assembly) including an electrode and a separator [0047];
a sealing part extending outward from the cup part ([0028] discloses a sealing part, as seen in fig. 1 the sealing part extends outward from the cup part), the sealing part including an inner area adjacent to the cup part and an outer area positioned toward an outside of the battery case (as can be seen in fig. 1 of Lee, the sealing part is provided with an inner area adjacent to the cup part, as well as an outer area positioned away from the inner area and relatively more toward an outside of the battery case. An annotated fig. 1 has been provided below in which the inner area has been denoted as “I”, and the outer area has been denoted as “O”. In this case, the inner area is the area adjacent to the cup part, whereas the outer area is the area positioned relatively closer to the outside of the battery case.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and
a gas discharge part which attached to a hole formed by perforating at least one of the cup part or the inner area of the sealing part, the hole configured to allow gas to pass therethrough ([0025] discloses a hole formed in the sealing portion of the pouch/case, see also fig. 1, [0036] discloses that the hole is formed so gas can be discharged through the area where the hole is formed, therefore reading on a gas discharge part and configured to allow gas to pass therethrough. As can be seen in the figure, the hole is formed in an inner area of the of the sealing part adjacent to the cup part),
wherein the gas discharge part comprises:
an outer layer adjacent to the hole, ([0059] discloses a filler being applied to the inside and outside of the hole to prevent moisture penetration, thus reading on a layer formed on an outer surface of the gas discharge layer adjacent to the hole.
Lee does not disclose that the gas discharge part comprises a gas discharge layer configured to allow gas to pass therethrough and an outer functional layer formed on the outer surface of the gas discharge layer adjacent to the hole.
However, Matsukawa discloses a base material [0010] and a coating containing hydrophobic particles formed on a surface of the base material [0010], and that the base material has air permeability [0011]. [0015] additionally discloses that the coating covers the surface of the base material but does not completely fill the gaps between the base material, maintaining breathability/air permeability, this reading on the claimed limitation of a gas discharge layer (base material with air permeability) and an outer functional layer formed on an outer surface of the gas discharge layer (the coating which covers the surface of the base material), the outer functional layer being hydrophobic. [0014] disclose that with such an arrangement, a product can be obtained that has ultra-water repellency and excellent durability while maintaining the inherent breathability of the base material. These goals match with the disclosed goals of Lee, which include easily discharging gas generated inside the secondary battery through the hole 125 [0036] while preventing moisture from penetrating through the hole into the battery, disclosing that a filler of two or more materials can be provided on the hole to accomplish this end [0040]-[0041].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the technique disclosed by Matsukawa of coating top surface of an air permeable base material with a layer of hydrophobic particles for the gas discharge hole of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a product that has ultra-water repellency and excellent durability while maintaining the inherent breathability of the base material, as taught by Matsukawa. Matsukawa is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both trying to solve the same problem of multi-layered materials that are simultaneously air permeable and hydrophobic.
Matsukawa does not disclose that the gas discharge layer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene or polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Fukuoka discloses a hydrogen-releasing film formed to release hydrogen gas generated from a battery to the outside environment [0001], and further discloses a support 4 on which the hydrogen releasing film is provided, the support itself being hydrogen permeable as well [0058]. [0058] additionally discloses that a preferable support is polytetrafluoroethylene, as it is chemically and thermally stable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the support of Fukuoka is similar to the base material of Matsukawa, as they both function as gas permeable support layers for an upper layer. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polytetrafluoroethylene disclosed by Fukuoka in the base material of Matsukawa, thus meeting the limitations of claim 1. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a preferable support material that functions as a gas permeable layer and which is chemically and thermally stable. Fukuoka is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely gas permeable membranes for controlling battery gas discharge.
Modified Lee does not disclose that the hole that the gas discharge part is attached to is formed by perforating the cup part or substantially adjacent a boundary between the inner area of the sealing part and the accommodation space, however putting the hole for a gas discharge formation in such a location was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, You discloses a similar arrangement to Lee, wherein a cup part provided with an accommodation space is configured to accommodate an electrode assembly (see fig. 8), and wherein a gas discharge part is formed on an area substantially adjacent a boundary between the inner area of the sealing part and the accommodation space ([0062] discloses slits 242 that are formed to open and discharge gas during high pressure conditions. As can be seen in fig. 8, these slits are provided substantially adjacent a boundary between the inner area of the sealing part and the accommodation space. Examiner notes that “substantially adjacent” is a subjective term, and the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. As can be seen in fig. 8, these slits/gas discharge parts are provided in the inner area of the sealing part, and are close to, or “substantially adjacent” the boundary between the inner area of the sealing part and the accommodation space.
Based on the disclosure of You, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the holes for the gas discharge part of Lee could be placed in an area substantially adjacent a boundary between the inner area of the sealing part and the accommodation space, as disclosed by You and required by the instant claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having seen both the placement of the gas discharge mechanisms of Lee and of You, could have routinely selected a portion of the sealing part to place the hole and gas discharge mechanism of modified Lee, either towards the center of the sealing part as originally disclosed by Lee, or in the inner area substantially adjacent a boundary between the sealing part and the accommodation space, as disclosed by You. Doing so would be nothing more than the routine selection of one known gas discharge part location for another, and after selecting the placement showcased in You, modified Lee would satisfy the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 8 has largely the same limitations as claim 1, but with the additional limitation that the outer functional layer includes at least one of Fluorocarbon oil, silicon oil, carbon-based oil, or fatty acid amid. [0044] of Matsukawa discloses several different materials that can be used as the hydrophobic particles, but teaches that among those materials, materials with hydrophilic surfaces may be used if they are hydrophobized in advance using materials such as higher fatty acids or silicone oils. While Matsukawa does not disclose an embodiment that uses silicone oil, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicone oil for this purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to properly hydrophobize the fine particles of Matsukawa in order to obtain suitably hydrophobic particles.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the battery case of claim 1, wherein the outer functional layer comprises at least polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE) ([0012] of Matsukawa discloses that the coating film/outer functional layer includes a binder resin, and [0012], [0045] discloses that the binder resin may be polyethylene).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the battery case of claim 1, wherein the gas discharge layer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses the battery case of claim 1, wherein the sealing part comprises an inner area adjacent to the cup part and an outer area positioned away from the inner area to form an edge (as can be seen in fig. 1 of Lee, the sealing part is provided with an inner area adjacent to the cup part, as well as an outer area positioned away from the inner area than forms an edge. An annotated fig. 1 has been provided below in which the inner area has been denoted as “I”, and the outer area has been denoted as “O”. In this case, the inner area is the area adjacent to the cup part, whereas the outer area is the area which forms the edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), the outer area configured to form a seal to seal the cup part ([0028] discloses a sealing portion 121 on each surface of where the lower portion 120 of the pouch and upper portion 110 of the upper pouch are in close contact with each other. As can be seen in the figure, this would include both inner area and outer area of the sealing part from the instant claim 9, thus reading on “outer area configured to form a seal to seal the cup part”), wherein the hole is formed in the inner area of the sealing part (as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, You discloses forming a gas discharge part in the area substantially adjacent the boundary between the cup part and the accommodation space, which also happens to be within the inner area of the sealing part).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses the battery case of claim 1, wherein the battery case includes a plurality of gas discharge parts (as can be seen in fig. 1 of Lee, the battery case includes a plurality of gas discharge parts/holes 125).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses a secondary battery comprising the battery case of claim 1 and an electrode assembly including an electrode and a separator ([0047] of Lee), the electrode assembly being accommodated in the accommodation space of the battery case ([0029] of Lee).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20130099892 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent), in view of Matsukawa (JP 2017206777 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent), Fukuoka (US 20170133648 A1), and You (US 20100266881 A1), and further in view of Kinuta et al. (JP 2008198664 A, a translation filed 04/07/2023 in the parent application 17/630,272 and included in the prior office action is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the battery case of claim 1, but does not disclose an inner functional layer formed on an inner surface of the gas discharge layer opposite the outer functional layer. Kinuta however, discloses a gas permeable membrane 23 provided with an electrolyte dew condensation prevention membrane 24 provided below it ([0007] and fig. 2), the electrolyte dew condensation prevention membrane being treated to cause water repellency [0008], thus reading on an inner functional layer formed on an inner surface of a gas discharge layer opposite the outer surface of a gas discharge layer. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electrolyte dew condensation prevention membrane disclosed by Kinuta in the device of modified Lee, and doing so would result in a configuration where the claimed inner functional layer is provided on an inner surface of the gas discharge layer opposite the outer functional layer, meeting the limitations of claim 4. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the electrolyte dew condensation prevention effect disclosed by Kinuta.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art of record, Lee (KR 20130099892 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent), discloses a battery case for a secondary battery ([0028] discloses a pouch 100 which reads on the claimed battery case, see also fig. 1), the battery case comprising:
a pouch film including a gas barrier layer made of metal ([0032] discloses a metal layer 113 that, among other things, prevents the penetration of oxygen, thus reading on the limitation of gas barrier layer made of oxygen), a surface protection layer as an outermost layer ([0030] discloses an outermost layer 111 to accompany the metal layer, which [0031] discloses is a protective layer), and a sealant layer made of a polymer as an innermost layer ([0030] discloses an inner layer 115 to accompany the metal layer and the outer layer. [0033] discloses that this inner layer can act as a sealant and can be formed of various polymer materials, thus reading on the claimed limitations), the gas barrier layer being between the surface protection layer and the sealant layer ([0030] and fig. 1);
a cup part formed in the pouch film and provided with an accommodation space configured to accommodate an electrode assembly ([0028] discloses a receiving portion 122 which reads on the claimed cup part provided with an accommodation space, see also fig. 1) configured to accommodate an electrode assembly ([0028] discloses that the cup part/receiving portion 122 is capable of receiving an electrode assembly), the electrode assembly including an electrode and a separator [0047];
a sealing part extending outward from the cup part ([0028] discloses a sealing part, as seen in fig. 1 the sealing part extends outward from the cup part), the sealing part including an inner area adjacent to the cup part and an outer area positioned toward an outside of the battery case (as can be seen in fig. 1 of Lee, the sealing part is provided with an inner area adjacent to the cup part, as well as an outer area positioned away from the inner area and relatively more toward an outside of the battery case. An annotated fig. 1 has been provided below in which the inner area has been denoted as “I”, and the outer area has been denoted as “O”. In this case, the inner area is the area adjacent to the cup part, whereas the outer area is the area positioned relatively closer to the outside of the battery case:
PNG
media_image1.png
427
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and
a gas discharge part attached to a hole formed by perforating the inner area of the sealing part, the hole perforating through the pouch film to exposed the gas barrier layer on an inner circumferential surface of the hole, the hole configured to allow a gas to pass therethrough ([0025] discloses a hole formed in the sealing portion of the pouch/case, see also fig. 1, which includes perforating the gas barrier later, which is part of the sealing portion. [0036] discloses that the hole is formed so gas can be discharged through the area where the hole is formed, therefore reading on a gas discharge part and configured to allow gas to pass therethrough. As can be seen in the figure, the hole is formed in an inner area of the of the sealing part adjacent to the cup part).
Lee does not disclose that the gas discharge part comprises a gas discharge layer configured to allow gas to pass therethrough and an outer functional layer formed on the outer surface of the gas discharge layer adjacent to the hole.
However, Matsukawa (JP 2017206777 A, a machine translation included in a prior office action is used as an English equivalent) discloses a base material [0010] and a coating containing hydrophobic particles formed on a surface of the base material [0010], and that the base material has air permeability [0011]. [0015] additionally discloses that the coating covers the surface of the base material but does not completely fill the gaps between the base material, maintaining breathability/air permeability, this reading on the claimed limitation of a gas discharge layer (base material with air permeability) and an outer functional layer formed on an outer surface of the gas discharge layer (the coating which covers the surface of the base material), the outer functional layer being hydrophobic. [0014] disclose that with such an arrangement, a product can be obtained that has ultra-water repellency and excellent durability while maintaining the inherent breathability of the base material. These goals match with the disclosed goals of Lee, which include easily discharging gas generated inside the secondary battery through the hole 125 [0036] while preventing moisture from penetrating through the hole into the battery, disclosing that a filler of two or more materials can be provided on the hole to accomplish this end [0040]-[0041].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the technique disclosed by Matsukawa of coating top surface of an air permeable base material with a layer of hydrophobic particles for the gas discharge hole of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a product that has ultra-water repellency and excellent durability while maintaining the inherent breathability of the base material, as taught by Matsukawa. Matsukawa is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both trying to solve the same problem of multi-layered materials that are simultaneously air permeable and hydrophobic.
Matsukawa does not disclose that the gas discharge layer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene or polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Fukuoka (US 20170133648 A1) discloses a hydrogen-releasing film formed to release hydrogen gas generated from a battery to the outside environment [0001], and further discloses a support 4 on which the hydrogen releasing film is provided, the support itself being hydrogen permeable as well [0058]. [0058] additionally discloses that a preferable support is polytetrafluoroethylene, as it is chemically and thermally stable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the support of Fukuoka is similar to the base material of Matsukawa, as they both function as gas permeable support layers for an upper layer. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polytetrafluoroethylene disclosed by Fukuoka in the base material of Matsukawa, thus meeting the instant limitation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a preferable support material that functions as a gas permeable layer and which is chemically and thermally stable.
However, modified Lee does not disclose that the gas discharge part is attached from an inside of the battery case. Rather, Lee discloses that the filler which is applied to the hole can be applied or attached to the inside of the hole or to the outside of the hole, but does not disclose the filler being attached to or from an inside of the battery case [0040]. Additionally, none of the other discussed references teach this feature either. Finally, Modified Lee does not disclose that an outer functional layer formed on an outer surface of the gas discharge layer is sealed to the sealant layer, wherein the gas discharge layer part covers the exposed gas battier layer on an inner circumferential surface of the hole to prevent corrosion by electrolyte. Additionally, since the outer functional layer taught by Matsukawa is a spray applied to the surface of a base material rather than a thicker and more structurally distinct layer, it would not be obvious to attach the gas discharge layer to the pouch film by sealing the outer functional layer to the sealant layer of the pouch film, either in view of the discussed references or in view of any other found reference.
For these reasons claim 9 has been found to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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 Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752