DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-13 and 17 have been amended. Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled. Claims 18 and 19 have been added. Claims 1, 2 and 5-19 remain pending in the application with claims 7, 8 and 14-16 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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, 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherng (TW I584516 B).
Regarding claim 1, Cherng teaches a battery pouch comprising at least one container wall (10), a seam (111) connecting two edges of the at least one container wall and a vent (112), wherein at least a portion of the seam is formed around the vent (Fig. 2-6), and wherein the battery pouch retains a first electrode (20) and a second electrode (20) (Translation and Fig. 2-7).
Regarding claim 2, Cherng teaches the battery pouch of claim 1 above, wherein the at least one container wall is a flexible container wall (Translation-flexible outer casing 10).
Regarding claim 18, Cherng teaches the battery pouch of claim 1 above, wherein the battery pouch carries an electrolyte (Translation).
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.
Claims 5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yamashita (JP 05338657 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Cherng teaches the battery pouch of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the vent comprising a vent material, at least one opening and at least one connecting surface that connects the vent within the seam, wherein the at least one opening and the vent material form a gas conduit such that during use gas passes from an interior of the closed container to an exterior of the closed container through the gas conduit.
Yamashita teaches an analogous pouch comprising at least one container wall (1), a seam (M8) connecting two edges of the at least one container wall and a vent (1B), wherein at least a portion of the seam is formed around the vent (Translation: paragraphs 7, 8 and Fig. 6, 7). Yamashita further teaches that vents are known in the prior art to be configured with a vent material (1B), at least one opening (M6, M7) and at least one connecting surface (opposing surfaces of 1B) that connects the vent within the seam, wherein the at least one opening and the vent material form a gas conduit (4) such that during use gas passes from an interior of the closed container to an exterior of the closed container through the gas conduit (Translation: paragraphs 7, 8 and Fig. 6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the vent of Cherng with the vent of Yamashita, such the vent comprises a vent material, at least one opening and at least one connecting surface that connects the vent within the seam, wherein the at least one opening and the vent material form a gas conduit such that during use gas passes from an interior of the closed container to an exterior of the closed container through the gas conduit, as the substitution of one known venting structure for an alternative known venting structure to achieve the equivalent result of forming a gas conduit that allows gas to pass from the interior to the exterior of the closed container would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the battery pouch of claim 5 above, wherein the at least one connecting surface comprises at least two connecting surfaces (Yamashita-opposing surfaces of 1B) and the at least two connecting surfaces comprise a first connecting surface on a first side of the vent material (Yamashita-facing one of the two opposing container walls 1)and a second connecting surface on a second side of the vent material (Yamashita-facing the other of the two opposing container walls 1), wherein the first side is an opposed side of the vent material to the second side (Yamashita-Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the battery pouch of claim 9 above, wherein the first connecting surface comprises an asymmetrical connection between the vent material and a first surface of the seam and the second connecting surface comprises an asymmetrical connection between the vent material and a second surface of the seam (Yamashita-Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the battery pouch of claim 10 above, wherein the asymmetrical connection between the vent material and the second surface of the seam partially overlaps with the asymmetrical connection between the vent material and the first surface of the seam (Yamashita-Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the battery pouch of claim 11 above, wherein a first channel is formed between the vent material and the first surface of the seam and defined by the first connecting surface and a second channel is formed between the vent material and the second surface of the closed container and defined by the second connecting surface (Yamashita-Fig. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 13, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the battery pouch of claim 11 above, wherein the first connecting surface forms a U-shape on the first side of the vent material (Yamashita-upper and side seals M8) and the second connecting surface forms a U-shape on the second side of the vent material (Yamashita-lower and side seals m8) and the orientation of the U-shape on the first side is opposed to the orientation of the U-shape on the second side (Yamashita-Fig. 6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng in view of Yamashita, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kisida et al. (US 4,310,118 A, hereinafter Kisida).
Regarding claim 6, Cherng as modified by Yamashita teaches the container of claim 5 above, but fails to teach the vent material comprising a dense polymer material. Kisida teaches an analogous closed container comprising a vent including a vent material (3) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to form the vent material from a dense polymer material in order to prevent the passage of small material (column 3 lines 38-48).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Cherng as modified by Yamashita by alternatively forming the vent material of a dense polymer material, as taught by Kisida, in order to prevent the passage of small material.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita.
Regarding claim 17, Yamashita teaches a vent comprising a vent material (1B), at least one opening (M6, M7) and at least one connecting surface (opposing surfaces of 1B), wherein the vent is configured to be mounted within the seam of a closed container having an interior and an exterior such that the at least one opening is adjacent to the exterior of the closed container and the at least one connecting surface is configured to connect the vent into the seam, wherein the at least one opening and vent material form a gas conduit (4) such that during use when the vent is installed within the seam of the closed container gas passes from the interior of the closed container to the exterior of the closed container through the gas conduit (Translation: paragraphs 7, 8 and Fig. 6, 7).
Regarding the closed container being a batter pouch, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). It is also noted that the claim language “battery pouch” does not impart any specific structure to the claim. Accordingly, the container disclosed by Yamashita comprises the structure necessary to function as claimed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yang (CN 101512821 A).
Regarding claim 19, Cherng teaches the battery pouch of claim 18 above, but fails to teach the vent permitting waste gas generated within the battery pouch to be vented while retaining the electrolyte within the battery pouch.
Yang teaches an analogous battery pouch comprising a container wall (110), a seam (130) and a vent (200), wherein the battery pouch retains a first electrode and a second electrode (Fig. 1). Yang further teaches that it is known and desirable to provide a vent configured to permit waste gas generated within the battery pouch to be vented while retaining the electrolyte within the battery pouch (Translation and Fig. 1-7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the vent of Cherng with the vent of Yamashita, such that the vent is configured to permit waste gas generated within the battery pouch to be vented while retaining the electrolyte within the battery pouch, in order to prevent leakage of the electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Yamashita is not a battery pouch that retains a first electrode and a second electrode is not persuasive.
Yamashita was not intended to specifically teach the argued limitation as the argued limitation is a new limitation not presented in the previously examined claims.
Regarding Yamashita teaching a specific venting structure, however, an inventor considering a venting structure for a battery pouch would naturally look to other references employing venting structures, such as storage bags having venting structures.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights