Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/584,032

POUCH-TYPE SECONDARY BATTERY, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND POUCH-TYPE SECONDARY BATTERY MANUFACTURED THEREFROM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 25, 2022
Examiner
SRIPATHI, ANKITH REDDY
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK Innovation Co. Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
74 granted / 111 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 111 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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, 2, 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (KR20190042215A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on January 25th, 2022) in view of Pinnau (“Solid polymer electrolyte composite membranes for olefin/paraffin separation”) in view of Kim (“PEBAX-1657/Ag nanoparticles/7,7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane complex for highly permeable composite membranes with long-term stability”) further in view of Kim’ (US20120021261). Regarding Claim 1, Ji discloses a pouch-type secondary battery ([001]) having an electrode assembly housing inside a pouch ([003]), Wherein the pouch has one or two or more openings (one side of the cover part is opened, [0017], Fig. 4), One side surface or both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by a gas separation membrane (Fig. 4, gas separation membrane-232, [0024],[0062], and cover part-231, [0063]), and The gas separation membrane includes a porous substrate (gas separation membrane made of porous material with plurality of holes, [0024]). Ji does not directly disclose wherein the gas separation membrane includes both a porous substrate and a composite layer. Ji is further silent to wherein the gas separation membrane includes a porous and composite layer, in which silver-based particles are dispersed, formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous substrate. Ji does not directly disclose wherein the contents of the silver-based particles and the polymer in the composite layer are at a mole ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:1.2 of the silver-based particles with respect to a repeating unit of a polymer. Ji does not directly disclose wherein one side surface of both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by the composite layer of the gas separation membrane. Pinnau discloses a composite membrane made from poly(ether imide), that includes silver-based particles (membrane made of polymer(ether imide) and silver tetrafluoroborate, [3.1 Composite membrane preparation]). Pinnau discloses that this membrane has gas-permeation properties ([3.2 Characterization of gas permeation properties]). Pinnau further discloses wherein the silver tetrafluoroborate layer is coated onto the porous substrate formed of poly(ether imide) (Fig. 3 shows silver tetrafluoroborate layer on porous membrane, 3.1, silver composite layer coated onto the porous membrane, 4.1.1). Pinnau further discloses wherein the contents of polymer to silver mole ratios can range from 8:1, 4:1, 2:1, 1:2 ([4.1.1- Effect of AgBF4 carrier concentration]), which overlaps the instant claim range of silver to polymer mole ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:1.2. Pinnau teaches that this structure provides an improved degree of separation and stable membrane ([4.2.3- Stability of mixed-gas permeation properties). The examiner notes that a silver salt can be interpreted to mean any chemical compound formed of a positive ion of silver, and a negative ion of another compound. Therefore, since AgBF4 is a chemical compound formed of positive ions of silver and negative ions of BF4, and because AgBF4 is soluble in water, that AgBF4 can be interpreted to be a silver salt dispersed in a polymer. The examiner further notes that the silver tetrafluoroborate composite layer is a carrier for the gas permeation process (2.1), and therefore one of ordinary skill would understand that the composite layer would cover the opening that is sealed by the gas separation membrane. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ji with the teachings of Pinnau to have wherein the gas separation membrane includes a porous and composite layer, wherein the composite layer comprises silver salt particles are dispersed, formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous substrate and wherein one side surface of both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by the composite layer of the gas separation membrane. Ji in view of Pinnau does not disclose the use of electron acceptors, wherein the electron acceptor is tetracyanoquinodimethane. Kim discloses a poly(ether-block-amide) resin with silver nanoparticle (AgNPs) and tetracyanoquinodimethane composite membrane for olefin/paraffin separation (Results and Discussion, pg. 2). Kim further discloses wherein tetracyanoquinodimethane is used as an electron acceptor (Introduction, Separation Performance, pg. 3). Kim teaches that the use of tetracyanoquinodimethane in composite layers with polyether block amide resin with silver nanoparticles provides improved separation and higher permeance characteristics (Introduction, Pg. 2). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ji with the teachings of Pinnau and Kim to have wherein the composite layer comprises a silver salt and an electron acceptor dispersed in a polymer, wherein the electron acceptor is tetracyanoquinodimethane. This modified structure would yield the expected results of improved stability of the silver particles. Ji does not directly disclose wherein the gas separation membrane is sealed using thermal bonding. Kim’ discloses a gas permeable membrane ([0021]). Kim’ further discloses wherein the gas permeable membrane structure is sealed to the lid through thermal melting ([0074]). Kim’ teaches that this structure provides improved reliability of the electrochemical cell ([0027]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ji with the teachings of Kim’ to have wherein the gas separation membrane is sealed using thermal bonding. Regarding Claim 2, Ji in view of Pinnau further in view of Kim further in view of Kim’ discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ji does not directly disclose wherein the composite layer comprises at least one selected from polyimide-based, polyvinylidene fluoride-based, polyvinylalcohol-based, polystyrene-based, polyamide-based, polyvinylpyrrolidone-based, polyethyleneoxide-based, polyoxazoline-based polymers, a polymer electrolyte and a copolymer thereof. Pinnau discloses wherein the composite layer comprises at least one selected from polyimide-based, polyethyleneoxide-based, or polymer-based electrolyte (membrane made of polymer(ether imide), [3.1 Composite membrane preparation]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ji with the teachings of Pinnau to have wherein the composite layer comprises at least one selected from polyimide-based, polystyrene-based, polyamide-based. Regarding Claim 5 & 6, Ji in view of Pinnau further in view of Kim further in view of Kim’ discloses the limitations as set forth above. Pinnau discloses wherein the composite layer is formed on the surface of the porous substrate (solution containing poly(ethylene oxide) and silver tetrafluoroborate onto a microporous support, [5. Conclusions]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ji with the teachings of Pinnau to have the composite layer formed on the surface of the porous substrate. Claim(s) 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (KR20190042215A, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Pinnau (“Solid polymer electrolyte composite membranes for olefin/paraffin separation”) in view of Kim (“PEBAX-1657/Ag nanoparticles/7,7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane complex for highly permeable composite membranes with long-term stability”) further in view of Kim’ (US20120021261) further in view of Kharul (US20150367294). Regarding Claim 3 & 4, Ji in view of Pinnau further in view of Kim further in view of Kim’ discloses the limitations as set forth above. Ji is silent to the thickness of the composite layer and porous substrate of the gas separation membrane. Ji in view of Pinnau discloses separation membrane with a composite layer and with a porous substrate. Pinnau discloses wherein the composite layer has a thickness of 5 um ([3.1 Composite membrane preparation]), which is within the instant claim range of 1 to 10 um. Kharul discloses a gas separation membrane (MOF, [001], gas separation, [0011]) that includes a porous substrate (MOF includes pores/channels-8, composite material/ first layer of material-11 acts as porous substrate, [0034], [0058]), and a composite layer (second/third layer of organic or inorganic material-12/13 acts as composite layer, [0025],[0058-0059]). Kharul further discloses wherein silver nanoparticles are includes in the composite layer (MOF stands for metal-organic frameworks, [0027], precursor material-14 has metal nanoparticles imbedded into polymer matrix, [0036], silver nanoparticles can be used at materials, [Table 1], [0075], nanoparticles-51/52 are dispersed throughout the polymer matrix, [0051]). Kharul teaches that this structure allows for improved stability of the composite material, allowing for improved gas separation ([0058]). Kharul discloses that the thickness of the composite material, which includes the entire gas separation membrane ([0105]) can vary from 10 um to 500 um, ([0105]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 10 to 200 um for the porous substrate. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the porous substrate and composite layer of Ji in view of Pinnau with the teachings of Kharul to have the composite layer have a thickness of 1 to 10 um, and have the porous substrate have a thickness of 10 to 200 um. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes that the previous rejection improperly referred to the Kharul reference as Stark. This has been corrected in this final action. The rejection of claim 3 and 4 remain the same. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest “wherein one side surface of both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by the composite layer of the gas separation membrane.” Applicant further argues that the combination of Ji and Pinnau would be inappropriate as Ji utilizes ultrasonic fusion for the gas separation membrane, as the ultrasonic fusion would cause the composite layer to detach from the porous membrane. Ji does not directly disclose wherein one side surface of both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by the composite layer of the gas separation membrane. Pinnau discloses a composite membrane made from poly(ether imide), that includes silver-based particles (membrane made of polymer(ether imide) and silver tetrafluoroborate, [3.1 Composite membrane preparation]). Pinnau discloses that this membrane has gas-permeation properties ([3.2 Characterization of gas permeation properties]). Pinnau further discloses wherein the silver tetrafluoroborate layer is coated onto the porous substrate formed of poly(ether imide) (Fig. 3 shows silver tetrafluoroborate layer on porous membrane, 3.1, silver composite layer coated onto the porous membrane, 4.1.1). Pinnau further discloses wherein the contents of polymer to silver mole ratios can range from 8:1, 4:1, 2:1, 1:2 ([4.1.1- Effect of AgBF4 carrier concentration]), which overlaps the instant claim range of silver to polymer mole ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:1.2. Pinnau teaches that this structure provides an improved degree of separation and stable membrane ([4.2.3- Stability of mixed-gas permeation properties). The examiner notes that a silver salt can be interpreted to mean any chemical compound formed of a positive ion of silver, and a negative ion of another compound. Therefore, since AgBF4 is a chemical compound formed of positive ions of silver and negative ions of BF4, and because AgBF4 is soluble in water, that AgBF4 can be interpreted to be a silver salt dispersed in a polymer. The examiner further notes that the silver tetrafluoroborate composite layer is a carrier for the gas permeation process (2.1), and therefore one of ordinary skill would understand that the composite layer would cover the opening that is sealed by the gas separation membrane. The examiner further notes that Ji discloses that the exhaust part formed of the gas separation membrane can be bonded through thermal fusion ([0069]), which is the same type of bonding for the gas separation membrane that is disclosed by the instant specifications. Furthermore, the claim language does not require a specific type of bonding, and only requires wherein the gas separation membrane includes a porous substrate and a composite layer. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ji with the teachings of Pinnau to have wherein the gas separation membrane includes a porous and composite layer, wherein the composite layer comprises silver salt particles are dispersed, formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous substrate and wherein one side surface of both side surfaces of the opening is sealed by the composite layer of the gas separation membrane. 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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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. /ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 28, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 03, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555780
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12523705
Battery Apparatus and Current Sensor Diagnosis Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519101
CERIA-CARBON-SULFUR COMPOSITE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, AND POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506139
Lithium-Doped Silicon-Based Oxide Negative Electrode Active Material, Method of Preparing the Same, and Negative Electrode and Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12489161
SECONDARY BATTERY AND BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 111 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month