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 .
DETAILEDACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/692,702 to Ko et al, assigned to LG Energy Solution, Ltd., filed 03/15/2024 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2024/0380082A1 on 11/14/2024.
This application is a National Phase entry pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/KR2023/009832, filed on 07/ 11/ 2023, and claims the benefit of and priority to Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0085249, filed on 07/11/2022.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed on 03/15/2024 stand as follows:-
Currently amended 1, 3-12,
Original 2
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application. All the pending claims are under full consideration.
Foreign Priority Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim to foreign priority benefit from Korean Patent Application KR10-2022-0085249 filed 07/11/2022. A certified copy of the priority document has been filed and is made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/15/2024; 07/28/2025; 11/14/2025; 06/09/2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. Duly initialed and signed copies are attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/15/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
Claim 1-12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/106,826 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the instant application discloses a secondary battery comprising a cell case including a cap plate, where the cell case has hexahedral shape and accommodates an electrode assembly; a positive terminal and negative terminal spaces apart and disposed on the top surface of the cell case; a terminal structure comprising a terminal body coupled to the top surface of the cell case, and one or more surfaces extending from the top surface while covering the positive or negative terminal and an extension terminal electrically connected to the positive or negative electrode and exposed on one surface other than the top surface, and an extension wire connected the positive or negative terminal and forming a joint part with the terminals and the joint part being insulated from the outside of the secondary battery. Claim 1, 2 and 3 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites a similar secondary battery comprising similar terminal structure including a terminal extension part where the terminal body part covers at least one of the positive terminal and negative terminal, and the terminal extension part exposed to surface other than the upper surface of the terminal body. Claim 2 recites the battery case has a hexahedral battery case. Claim 3 recites an extension wire connecting the terminal extension to part to at least one of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal.
Claim 3 of the instant application recites an adhesive layer formed on the surface of the cell case in contact with the terminal body. Claim 4 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites the terminal body comprise an insulating resin material.
Claim 7 of the instant application recites the terminal body is coupled to the top surface of the cell case, and one side surface extending from the top surface. Claim 5 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites the terminal body is coupled to the upper surface of the battery case and one side surfaces connected to the upper surface of the battery case.
Claim 8 of the instant application recites the secondary battery comprises a pair of the terminal structures each coupled to the positive terminal and the negative terminal. Claim 7 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites a pair of terminal structures called first terminal structure and second terminal structure couped to the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal respectively.
Claim 9 of the instant application recites the extension terminals of the terminal structures are coupled to the positive and negative terminals have the same or different upward and downward positions with respect to the battery cell. Claims 11 of co-pending application 18/106,826 the first extension terminal of the first terminal structure and a second extension terminal of the second terminal structure are positioned on a common surface.
Claim 10 of the instant application recites a venting part is provided on one surface of the cell case, and the extension terminal of the terminal structure is provided on a surface other than the surface provided with the venting part. Claim 14 of the co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites the same limitation, wherein a venting part is provided on one surface of the cell case, and the terminal extension part of the terminal structure is provided on a surface other than the surface provided with the venting part.
Claim 11 of the instant application recites the venting part is provided on the top surface of the cell case between the positive and negative terminals. Claim 15 the co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites the venting part is positioned between the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal on the upper surface of the battery case.
Claim 12 of the instant application recites the secondary battery comprises a pair of terminal structures, and an extension terminal of one the terminal structures is exposed on one side surface of the cell case. Claim 7 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites a pair of terminal structures called first terminal structure and second terminal structure couped to the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal respectively. Claim 5 of co-pending application 18/106,826 also recites the terminal body is coupled to the upper surface of the battery case and one side surfaces connected to the upper surface of the battery case.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0126511; hereafter called Park ‘511)
Regarding claims 1 and 7 Park ‘511 discloses a secondary battery 100 (Park ‘511 Title, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 0006), comprising a can 120 (Park ‘511 Fig. 2, paragraph 0037) considered equivalent to the cell case; the can 120 include an upper surface 120 u and cap plate 130 (Park ‘511 Fig. 1, 2, paragraph 0037) and the can (equivalent to the cell case) has a hexagonal shape (Park ‘511 Fig. 1-3, paragraph 0041), equivalent to the hexahedral shape, and accommodates an electrode assembly 110 (Park ‘511 Fig. 2, paragraph 0037). An electrode terminal 140 is disposed on the cap plate 130 (Park ‘511 paragraph 0044), and connection portion 133 that is part of the plate is attached to the cap plate 130 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0052), and the cap plate may be connected to the second electrode tab (Park ‘511 paragraph 0045, 0046), the connection portion 133 connected to the cap plate considered equivalent to the second terminal having an opposite polarity to the first terminal; thus, the connection portion 133 and the electrode terminal 140 are considered equivalent to the positive terminal and the negative terminal.
A first coverlay 160 comprising a portion coupled to the top surface of the can (i.e. cell case), and one more surface extending from the top surface while covering the electrode terminal (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0006, 0013), and a second coverlay 170 comprising a portion coupled to the top surface the can (i.e. cell case), and one more surface extending from the top surface while covering the electrode terminal (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0006, 0013 ), either of two coverlay is considered equivalent to the terminal structure.
The coverlay 160, 170, considered equivalent to the terminal structure, comprising a portion coupled to the top surface, called first region 162 for the first coverlay 160, and third region 172 for the second coverlay 170 (Park ‘511 paragraph 0048) covering the positive or negative terminal.
Park ‘511 is silent about the terminal body of the coverlay that has one or more surfaces extending from the top surface while covering the positive terminal or negative terminal as recited in claim 1 and claim 7. Park ‘511, however, discloses a fixing tape 190 attached to the extension portion of the coverlay extend to the pair of first side surfaces (Park ‘511 Fig. 1) so that the first coverlay 160 and second coverlay 170 may be fixed (Park ‘511 Fig. 1, paragraph 0057), but is silent the fixing tape covers the positive or negative terminal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have made the fixing tape 190 into a terminal body extending to one or more surface extending from the top surface while covering the positive or negative terminal. Such a modification would constitute changing the position of the fixing tape such that is covers the electrode terminals and two sides extending from the top side. According to the MPEP shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C.).
Park ‘511 discloses the overlay 160, 170, considered equivalent to the terminal structure may be electrically connected to the bare cell and electric charges generated in the bare cell B may be conducted to the outside (Park ‘511 paragraph 0049). The first coverlay 160 may include a first region 162 located on the upper surface 120 u, and a second region 163 bent from the first region 162 perpendicularly and located on one of the pair of second side surfaces 120 s; and the second coverlay 170 may include a third region 172 located above the first region 162, and a fourth region 173 bent perpendicularly from the third region 172 and located above the second region 163 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0048). The first terminal 164 may protrude from an end portion of the second region 163, and the second terminal 174 may protrude from the fourth region 173 exposed on a side surface different than the top surface (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0051), considered equivalent to the extension terminal connected to the positive or negative terminal and exposed on a side other than the top surface.
The first region 162 of the overlay 160, and the third region 172 of the 170 are extension portions electrically connecting the extension terminal 164, 174 to the negative and negative terminals 140 , 133 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3), are considered equivalent to the extension wire connecting the extension terminal to the positive or negative terminals. The joint part with the positive and negative terminal are insulated from the cap plate by a first gasket 145 and a second gasket 146 (Park ‘511 Fig. 2, paragraph 0046); thus insulating the positive terminal and second terminal from outside of the battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park ‘511 Fig. 3
Regarding claim 2 Park ‘511 discloses the first region attached to the connection portion 133 may be attached through a welding process (Park ‘511 paragraph 0053), equivalent to the joint part formed by welding.
Regarding claim 6 the joint part with the positive and negative terminal are insulated from the cap plate by a first gasket 145 and a second gasket 146 (Park ‘511 Fig. 2, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 8 Park ‘511 discloses the overlay 160, and overlap 170, (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0035, 0048, 0049) considered equivalent to the pair of terminal structures; electrically connected to the bare cell and the positive terminal and the negative terminal 133, 140, (Park ‘511 Fig. 3) wherein electric charges generated in the bare cell B may be conducted to the outside (Park paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 9 Park ‘511 discloses the battery cell has a first terminal 164 may protrude from an end portion of the second region 163, and the second terminal 174 may protrude from the fourth region 173 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3) equivalent to the extension terminals and have the same upward and downward positions with respect to the battery cell (Park ‘511 Fig. 3).
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0126511; called Park ‘511) as applied to claim 1, in view of Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0237811; hereafter called Park ‘811)
The discussion of Park ‘511 as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 3 Park ‘511 is silent about an adhesive layer formed on at least one surface of the cell case in contact with the terminal body. Park ‘811 discloses a secondary battery having an adhesive layer 123, such as sealant, interposed between each of electrode leads 124, 125 and the pouch sheathing member 110 (Park ‘811 Fig. 5, paragraph 0049, 0052), the electrode lead is equivalent to the terminal body and the sheathing member is equivalent to the cell case. Park ‘811 discloses that the sealant provides high sealability (Kim ‘811 paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the battery of Park ‘511 by the disclosure of Park ‘811 and to have included an adhesive layer on one surface of the case in contact with the terminal body for sealing the battery case including at the portion where the electrode terminal protrudes out of the battery case as taught by Park ‘811 (Park ‘811paragraph 0049, 0052, 0060). According to the MPEP such as modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 4 Park ‘811 discloses the sealant, equivalent to the adhesive layer, is made of a polyolefin-based resin, such as polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE) exhibits excellent mechanical properties, such as high tensile strength, high rigidity, high surface hardness, and high impact resistance, as well as strong resistance to an electrolytic solution (Park “811), considered equivalent to the solid adhesive.
Regarding claim 5 Park ‘811 discloses the sealant provides high rigidity, and high impact resistance (Park ‘811 paragraph 0060); thus, strengthens vibration resistance between the bonded electrode terminal and the cell casing.
Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0126511; called Park ‘511) as applied to claim 1, in view of Oh et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0381681)
The discussion of Park ‘511 as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and fully applied to the rejection of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 10 Park ‘511 is silent about a venting part provided on the surface of the battery case. Oh discloses a secondary battery 100 may include an electrode assembly 110, a first terminal 120, a second terminal 130, a can (or case) 140 and a cap assembly 150 (Oh Fig. 1, paragraph 0035), the cap assembly may include a cap plate 151 having a safety vent 154 installed in a vent hole configured to be openable at a preset (or set) pressure (Oh Fig. 1, paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Park ‘511 by the safety vent of Oh to discharge any gas build up inside the battery case at a set or present pressure (Oh paragraph 00420), and consequently reduce the pressure inside the battery cell and prevent explosion of the battery cell. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). The battery cell of Park ‘511 modified by the safety vent of Oh have the extension terminal 164, 174 on a surface different than the safety vent.
Regarding claim 11 Oh discloses the safety vent is placed on the top surface positioned between the positive terminal and the negative terminal (Oh Fig. 1) and in the battery of Park ‘511 as modified by the safety vent of Oh (Ho Fig. 10, paragraph 0042) the safety vent would be placed between the positive and negative terminals 133, 140 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12 Regarding claim 8 Park ‘511 discloses the coverlay 160, and coverlay 170, (Park ‘511 Fig. 3, paragraph 0035, 0048, 0049) considered equivalent to the pair of terminal structures, electrically connected to the bare cell and the positive terminal and the negative terminal 133, 140, (Park ‘511 Fig. 3), and the battery cell have a first terminal 164 may protrude from an end portion of the second region 163, and the second terminal 174 may protrude from the fourth region 173 (Park ‘511 Fig. 3) equivalent to the extension terminals, and the extension terminal of one of the terminal structures is exposed on one side of the surface of the battery cell (Park ‘511 Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights