DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-10 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 requires “the gas discharge portion is formed in a lower side of the electrode lead.” It is unclear how the gas discharge portion is supposed to be formed, or whether this limitation is merely to be read in line with embodiments described in the as-filed specification, where the gas discharge portion is formed entirely separate from the electrode lead, but at what can be, at least, a “lower side” of the housing. Read literally, the gas discharge portion is actually formed in the electrode lead, however, and it is unclear whether that is intended or what that might entail. The claim is read broadly as “at what can be a lower side of the housing if the cell is arranged in a particular way.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP H1186823 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches:
a battery cell comprising a battery case including an electrode assembly positioned in an accommodation portion of a housing with a peripheral sealing portion of the housing being sealed (Fig. 2)
electrode leads 2 connected to the assembly and protruding out of the housing through the sealing portion (Fig. 2, ¶ 0041)
wherein the sealing portion includes a gas discharge portion 5 (Figs. 2 and 8, ¶ 0041-0042, 0053-0054)
wherein the non-venting portion has one sealing pattern 14 and the venting portion has a different sealing pattern 14a (Fig. 8, ¶ 0053-0054)
PNG
media_image1.png
246
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
130
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Kato teaches:
the gas discharge portion having a lower sealing strength than the other portion (¶ 0053-0054)
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP H1186823 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation) in view of Takahagi (JP 6780725 to Takahagi et al., the Office cites to machine translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Kato teaches:
the sealing pattern 14 for the periphery includes longitudinal waves along the sealing portion (Fig. 8)
Kato does not explicitly teach:
the gas discharge portion having indentations and protrusions repeated in a width direction of the sealing portion
Takahagi, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery cell with a sealed periphery and a gas discharge portion 500 teaches such protrusions and indentations to improve fluid flow during a discharge event (Fig. 6, ¶ 0039-0040).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide such a width-patterned portion for the gas discharge portion of Kato, to improve the fluid flow during the discharge event, as taught in Takahagi. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Kato teaches:
equal intervals for the corrugated portion 14 (Fig. 8)
Regarding Claim 4, Kato does not teach:
greater intervals in the second sealing portion
It would have been obvious to provide spaced intervals that maintain the lower sealing pressure of the gas discharge portion in order to ensure that that portion is the one that opens up under higher pressure. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP H1186823 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation) in view of Otohata (US 2008/0233468 to Otohata et al.).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Kato does not teach:
the gas discharge portion located on a side of the periphery where the electrode lead is located (claim 5)
but not where the electrode lead is (claim 6)
Otohata, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery cell with a sealed periphery and a gas discharge portion, teaches providing it on the same side as the electrode leads, but not overlapping with them (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
890
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide the gas discharge portion on the same side as the electrode in Kato as that was a known alternative location for such venting portions.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP H1186823 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation) in view of Otohata (US 2008/0233468 to Otohata et al.), in further view of Tachikawa (JP 2012-069497 to Tachikawa et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Kato does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of cells (claim 8)
the cells stacked in a direction in which the gas discharge portion is at the bottom (claim 9)
the gas discharge portion formed at a lower side of the lead (claim 10)
Cell stacks were conventional in the art. Tachikawa, for example, from the same field of invention, regarding a pouch cell with a sealed periphery having a gas discharge portion positioned at an arbitrary side of the periphery (Figs. 14, 4, 5, etc.) teaches stacking a plurality of the cells with the venting portions at the bottom (Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image5.png
728
550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to stack the cells in order to form a battery module of higher power and voltage as was conventional in the art. It further would have been obvious to place the terminals either at the top or bottom or both of the cells (see e.g. Otohata vs. Tachikawa’s embodiments), with the venting portion at the bottom to direct the gas discharged downwards, as taught in Tachikawa. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
