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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received December 2, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 3-7 are cancelled; and claims 9-12 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-2 and 8 pending for examination.
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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, et al. (US PGPub 2011/0274955 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a pouch type secondary battery with an electrode assembly (21) including a positive plate, negative plate, and separator interposed between the positive plate and negative plate (alternately arranged electrodes and separators). The electrode assembly (21) is accommodated in a pouch type case (¶ [0016], Ln. 1-4). The electrode leads (25, 27) are connected to the electrode assembly by the electrode taps (¶ [0011], Ln. 10-15) and are projected to the outside of the case (¶ [0016], Ln. 6-8). The pouch type case includes an upper case and lower case, which have spaces (recess part) for accommodating the electrode assembly (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-3) and a sealing part sealing the upper and lower case together (¶ [0016], Ln. 4-5). As shown in Figures 5-9, the first and second electrode leads protrude from the same side of the electrode assembly, in this case the left side, which is treated as the upper circumference. The sealing part is formed along the edge of the space accommodating the electrode assembly (main sealing part) (¶ [0086], Ln. 1-5) and includes a trimming portion (234; protruding sealing part) which is indented toward the electrode assembly (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-5). The trimming portion (234; protruding sealing part) may be formed between the electrode leads (first protruding sealing part) (¶ [0105], Ln. 1-3; Fig. 8-9) and on at least one of the left and right sides of the electrode leads (second protruding sealing part) (¶ [0103], Ln. 1-3).
Park further teaches that the shape and size of the trimming portion formed between the electrode leads (first protruding sealing part) are different from the shape and size of the trimming portion on at least one of the left and right sides of the electrode leads (second protruding sealing part) as shown in Figures 8-9.
Park teaches that the batteries are arranged in a battery pack with a holder arranged on the trimming portions (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-3). The embodiment shown in Figure 15 includes a battery pack including multiple battery cells and holders arranged at the four corners of each battery cell. Figure 15 includes four trimming portions (protruding sealing parts) corresponding to the four holders. The figure also includes a dashed outline, which based on previous Figures 3-9, corresponds to the electrode assembly. Given the embodiment shown in Figure 15, the lower end of the trimming portions formed on the left and right sides of the electrode leads (second protruding sealing part) extends downward beyond an upper end of the electrode assembly to overlap a portion of the space for the electrode assembly (recess part). Given this configuration, the trimming portions are configured to restrict movement of the electrode assembly in both a first and second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction, and to prevent electrolyte leakage.
Additionally, shown in Figure 15, the trimming portions are located on the lower corners opposite the electrode leads (third and fourth protruding sealing part) as well as the upper corners on the same side of the electrode assembly as the electrode leads.
Park teaches that decreasing the internal dead space in a battery allows the battery pack to be more stably fixed and reduces the space where gas may remain (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-8). Park teaches that the trimming portions of the case are indented in toward the electrode assembly so as to minimize an internal dead space (¶ [0055], Ln. 5-11), which restrains the generation of gas (¶ [0060], Ln. 5-9). Park does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the trimming portions are located in between the electrode leads and on either side of the electrode leads, and in which the trimming portions are located on the side of the electrode assembly opposite the electrode leads, such that a trimming portion on the lower side of the electrode assembly (third protruding sealing part) opposite the electrode leads aligns with a trimming portion in between the electrode leads on the upper side (first protruding sealing part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery of Park such that the trimming portions on the top are located in between the electrode leads and on either side of the electrode leads, as shown in Figures 8-9, and such that the trimming portions on the bottom align with the trimming portions on the top. Based on the multiple embodiments taught by Park, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments, resulting in trimming portions at the corners and the center of the top and bottom of the electrode assembly. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include trimming portions anywhere where there is internal dead space in the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the trimming portions to minimize dead space in order to stably fix the battery pack and restrain the generation of gas.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the trimming portion (234; protruding sealing part) is located away from a width of the electrode assembly (21) in a direction along the width of the electrode assembly as shown in Figure 10.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches a battery pack including the pouch type secondary battery meeting the limitations of claim 1 (¶ [0015], Ln. 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claim 3 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by the Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 in the response filed December 2, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 6-7, the previous rejections of claims 1-2 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Park, et al. (US PGPub 2011/0274955 A1) have been modified above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues, see pages 6-9 of the remarks filed December 2, 2025, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to extend the trimming portions of Park below the upper end of the electrode assembly, that modifying the trimming portions would render the device inoperable, that the protruding sealing parts of the instant invention address a distinct technical problem not considered by Park and therefore constitute unexpected results, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include trimming portions on the opposite side of the electrode assembly. These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to extend the trimming portions of Park below the upper end of the electrode assembly and the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include trimming portions on the opposite side of the electrode assembly, this argument is not persuasive. As stated in the office action above, the embodiment shown in Figure 15 of Park includes trimming portions on the four corners of the electrode assembly. The trimming portions are therefore located on the side of the electrode assembly including the electrode leads, and on the side opposite to the electrode leads. Additionally, given the dashed line in Figure 15, the reference teaches trimming portions extending below the upper end of the electrode assembly. While it is acknowledged that a specific embodiment including the trimming portions in the four corners as well as trimming portions in the center of the upper end of the assembly (in between the electrodes) and in the center of the bottom end of the assembly (aligned with trimming portion in between the electrodes) is not expressly taught by Park, given the embodiments shown in Figures 8-9 and the embodiment of Figure 15, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the trimming portions in the claimed locations.
With respect to the argument that modifying the trimming portions would render the device inoperable, this argument is not persuasive. Given the embodiment shown in Figure 15, one could extend the trimming portions below the upper end of the electrode assembly without rendering the device inoperable for its intended purpose.
With respect to the argument that the protruding sealing parts of the instant invention address a distinct technical problem not considered by Park and therefore constitute unexpected results, this argument is not persuasive. In response to the Applicant's argument that the protruding sealing part , the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to the Applicant’s argument that this function constitutes unexpected results over the prior art, in the event that the Applicant intends to present a showing of unexpected results, a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting Applicant’s position is necessary. See MPEP 716.02(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785