SOFT PACK BATTERY

§102 §103

SOFT PACK BATTERY 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ming et al. (CN 202405348 U). Regarding claim 1, Ming et al. teach a soft pack battery (Paragraphs 0004, 0015, 0024, 0048, and 0057), comprising a packaging film (Fig. 1, element 11 discloses an outer packaging structure.), wherein at least one breathable hole is provided on the packaging film (Fig. 1, element 14 discloses a through-hole.), the soft pack battery further comprises a breathable membrane (Fig. 1, element 12 discloses a selectively permeable membrane.), the breathable membrane seals the breathable hole (Paragraph 0055 discloses covering through-holes, element 14, with a selectively permeable membrane.), and the breathable membrane is capable of blocking liquid while allowing gas to pass therethrough (Paragraph 0018 discloses the selectively permeable membrane allows only CO2 to be discharged outside the battery and not electrolyte.). Regarding claim 2, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one side of the soft pack battery is provided with one or more tabs (Fig. 2, element 24), the packaging film is provided with a top sealing area at the position corresponding to the tabs, and the breathable hole is provided within the top sealing area (Paragraph 0049; Fig. 1 discloses the selectively breathable membrane 12 includes a base polymer layer and a breathable layer covering the base polymer layer. Paragraph 0061; Fig. 2 further discloses a through hole is opened on the outer packaging structure of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2, and the selective breathable membrane 23 is correspondingly covered on the through hole. Furthermore, the selective breathable membrane 23 can be disposed anywhere on the surface of the outer packaging structure 21, but based on considerations of the breathability of the selective breathable membrane 23, preferably, the selective breathable membrane 23 is disposed near the tab 24 of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2). Regarding claim 3, Ming et al. teach the soft battery pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein the tabs are provided on one side of the soft pack battery (Fig. 1, element 24 discloses the tab is on one side.). Regarding claim 4, Ming et al. teach the soft battery pack as claimed in claim 3, wherein the tabs are provided on one side of the soft pack battery in a width direction of the soft pack battery, the top sealing area is provided on the side of the packaging film near the tabs, the top sealing area extends along a length direction of the soft pack battery, and the number of the breathable hole is one or more (See annotated Fig. 2 below). PNG media_image1.png 1406 2500 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Ming Regarding claim 12, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the breathable membrane is joined to the packing film by adhesive bonding (Fig. 1, element 13 discloses a circular fixing tape for the film.). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al. (CN 202405348 U). Regarding claim 5, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 2, and the breathable hole is provided within the top sealing area on at least one side of the packaging film (Paragraph 0049; Fig. 1 discloses the selectively breathable membrane 12 includes a base polymer layer and a breathable layer covering the base polymer layer. Paragraph 0061; Fig. 2 further discloses a through hole is opened on the outer packaging structure of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2, and the selective breathable membrane 23 is correspondingly covered on the through hole. Furthermore, the selective breathable membrane 23 can be disposed anywhere on the surface of the outer packaging structure 21, but based on considerations of the breathability of the selective breathable membrane 23, preferably, the selective breathable membrane 23 is disposed near the tab 24 of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2). While they do not teach wherein the tabs are provided on two opposite sides of the soft pack battery, this limitation is merely an example of duplication and rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); C. Rearrangement of Parts: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Regarding claim 6, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 5, wherein the top sealing area extends along a width direction of the soft pack battery and the number of the breathable hole is one or more (Paragraph 0049; Fig. 1 discloses the selectively breathable membrane 12 includes a base polymer layer and a breathable layer covering the base polymer layer. Paragraph 0061; Fig. 2 further discloses a through hole is opened on the outer packaging structure of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2, and the selective breathable membrane 23 is correspondingly covered on the through hole. Furthermore, the selective breathable membrane 23 can be disposed anywhere on the surface of the outer packaging structure 21, but based on considerations of the breathability of the selective breathable membrane 23, preferably, the selective breathable membrane 23 is disposed near the tab 24 of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 2. Also, see annotated Fig. 2 below.). PNG media_image1.png 1406 2500 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Ming While they do not teach wherein the tabs are provided on two opposite sides of the soft pack battery in the length direction of the soft pack battery, the top sealing area is provided on two opposite sides of the packaging film in the length direction, this limitation is merely an example of duplication and rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); C. Rearrangement of Parts: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Regarding claims 8 and 13-16, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claims 2-6. However, they do not teach wherein the breathable holes account for 1%-80% of the area of the top sealing area. MPEP 2144.04 IV CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS A. Changes in Size/Proportion: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Regarding claim 9, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the soft pack is provided with tabs (Fig. 2, element 24), the breathable hole is provided on one side (Paragraph 0061; Fig. 1, element 14) or two opposite sides of the packaging film, and the number of the breathable holes on each side is one or more (Fig. 1 shows one, element 14). While Ming et al. do not teach the tabs are provided on one side of the soft pack battery in a width direction of the soft pack battery or the breathable hole is provided in a length direction, this is merely a reversal or parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS A. Reversal of Parts: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Regarding claim 10, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the soft pack battery is provided with tabs (Fig. 2, element 24), the breathable hole is provided on one side or two opposite sides of the packaging film in a width direction of the soft pack battery (Paragraph 0061; Fig. 1, element 14. Further, see annotated Fig. 2 below.), and the number of the breathable hole on each side is one or more (Fig. 1, element 14 discloses one hole.). Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al. (CN 202405348 U) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Du et al. (CN 111261828 A). Regarding claim 7, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery as claimed in claim 2, wherein the soft pack battery further comprises a battery cell, the battery cell is provided within the packaging film (Abstract), one end of the tab is connected to the battery cell (Paragraphs 0066 and 0072). However, they do not teach a tab adhesive is provided on the tab, the tab adhesive is located within the top sealing area, and the breathable hole is located between the tab adhesive and the battery cell. Du et al. teach a battery cell (Fig. 1, element 1) having a tab (Fig. 1, element 3) and a tab adhesive (Fig. 1, element 2) provided on the tab. (Paragraphs 0048-0049). Further, the tab adhesive has an upward exhaust hole or channel in the transverse direction (Example 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ming with Du in order to prevent the cell from burning. Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Ming and Du et al. teach the soft pack battery of claim 7. However, they do not teach wherein the breathable holes account for 1%-80% of the area of the top sealing area. MPEP 2144.04 IV CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS A. Changes in Size/Proportion: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al. (CN 202405348 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bo et al. (CN 207009526 U). Regarding claim 11, Ming et al. teach the soft pack battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the breathable hole is in the range of 0.0001 mm2 to 900 mm2. Bo et al. teach a battery cell (Fig. 1, element 2) having a breathable sealing membrane (Fig. 1, element 5) on an outer packaging shell (Fig. 1, element 4). The breathable sealing film is provided with a metal protective sheet (Fig. 1, element 6) which comprises a large number of small holes having a diameter of less than 0.1 mm2 (Paragraph 0022) which yields an area of less than 0.314 mm2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ming with Bo in order to improve the protection of the breathable sealing membrane, and the more likely it is to prevent most of the interfering objects from contacting the breathable sealing membrane. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30. 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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1729 /DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 September 2nd, 2026