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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 4 and 9-15, are as previously presented, claims 2-3 and 5-8 are cancelled, claims 16-26 are newly presented. Claims 1, 4, 9-26 are presently presented.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Examiner note
In an effort to expedite prosecution, the examiner would like the applicant to consider narrowing the claimed standard deviation range of claim 1 and 16. Doing so may help distinguish the present application from the prior art.
The examiner would also like to note that for the purposes of prosecution, the thickness of the laminated film is only being considered for materials within a micrometer range. Applicant only explored one example and one comparative example both of which used a material with a thickness of 150 µm [0047-0048, instant specification].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20180055427A) and in view of Akamatsu (US20180272594A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Kim a battery comprising: a battery element including a positive electrode[0015, Kim], a negative electrode[0015, Kim], and a separator[0015, Kim]; and a laminated sheet (“film”) including a first accommodation portion (111) covering one side of the battery element and a second accommodation portion (112) covering the other side of the battery element opposite to the one side [0038, 0085, fig. 4 and 9, Kim], the laminated film including a resin layer and a barrier layer containing a metal [0038-0040, Kim], wherein a portion of the laminated film folded (114) from one of the first accommodation portion and the second accommodation portion to the other is provided with a recessed portion (113) recessed toward the battery element and extending along one direction orthogonal to a direction from the one side toward the other side of the battery element [0086-0088, 0108-0109, fig. 4, 9, Kim], the recessed portion is convexly curved toward the battery element [fig. 9, Kim],
PNG
media_image1.png
320
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 9, Kim
Kim is silent to the ratio of standard deviation to average thickness of the film.
However, Akamatsu discloses a laminate including a polyester resin film with excellent thickness uniformity and imparting a satisfactory ductility to a metal foil [0014, 0023, 0029, 0036, 0061, 0115, Akamatsu description of a polyester film and a metal layer (such as aluminum foil) being laminated reads on a “laminated film”], in which the disclosed polyester film/laminate’s primary use is for outer packaging materials (cases) for batteries [0002-0010, 0084, Akamatsu]. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that as the films of Kim and Akamatsu are both outer materials they face the same problems such as protecting the battery within from external conditions. Akamatsu further discloses that the outer film has a standard deviation of the thickness of 0.4 μm or less and an average thickness of 30 μm or less [0020-0021, 0079-0085, Akamatsu discloses that the polyester film used in a laminate for outer packaging material for a battery with a ratio of standard deviation of 0.4/30 = 0.013, which reads on the applicants claimed range.], where the thickness precision was measured by picking an arbitrary point on the film and 10 measurements taken every 10 mm along one of four directions [0081, Akamatsu].
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify the case as disclosed by Kim to be constructed and molded from a laminated film that has a high precision thickness at any point (thereby including the claimed region measured, as described by Akamatsu [0020-0021, 0079-0085, Akamatsu] because through excellent thickness precision one can obtain a material that has sufficient moldability and ductility to the metal foil as well as avoid failures such as delamination and pinholes [0078-0080, Akamatsu]. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that pinholes and delamination threaten exposure of the battery active materials to the environment causing damage to the device.
In regards to claim 16 the recessed portion has been formed by contacting the laminated film with a protruding portion of a mold to form the recessed portion and without any pressing of the portion of the laminated film provided with the recessed portion from a side of the laminated film opposite to the protruding portion [fig. 8, Kim].
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Kim as modified above discloses the battery, wherein a depth of the recessed portion decreases away from a center of the battery element in the one direction [fig. 7, Kim depicts protruding ends where the depth of the recess portion decreases away from the center].
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Kim as modified above discloses the battery, wherein the resin layer of the laminated film is a heat-sealable resin layer and the barrier layer [0039-0040, 0042, Kim].
Regarding claim 10 and 19, Kim as modified above discloses the battery, wherein the laminated film is an aluminum laminated film [0041, Kim].
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Kim as modified above discloses the battery, wherein the laminated film further includes a heat-sealable resin layer [0039-0040, 0042, Kim].
Regarding claim 12 and 21, Kim as modified above discloses the battery, wherein the heat-sealable resin layer includes a resin [0039-0040, 0042, Kim].
Regarding claim 13 and 22, Kim as modified above discloses wherein the heat sealable resin layer includes polypropylene, nylon, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0040, 0042, Kim].
Regarding claim 14 and 23, Kim as modified above discloses wherein the barrier layer includes at least one of aluminum, [0041, Kim].
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified above discloses wherein the recessed portion has been formed by contacting the laminated film with a protruding portion (350) of a mold to form the recessed portion (113) and without any pressing of the portion of the laminated film provided with the recessed portion from a side of the laminated film opposite to the protruding portion [fig. 8, Kim].
Regarding claim 24 and 25, Kim as modified above discloses the battery wherein the resin layer of the laminated film includes at least one heat-sealable resin layer selected, polypropylene, nylon, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and the barrier layer of the laminated film includes at least one of aluminum foil [0039-0042, Kim].
Regarding claim 26, Kim as modified above discloses the battery wherein the recessed portion has been formed by contacting the laminated film with a tip end of the protruding portion of the mold, and a surface of the tip end of the protruding portion having contacted the laminated film is convexly curved [fig. 8-9, Kim].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kim’260 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kim’260 as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that using a film as a raw material with uniform thickness in all directions would result in the uniformity of the material being destroyed on pressing. The examiner notes that the prior art only requires limitations on the standard deviation of the recessed portion. The thickness uniformity in any other part of the film is irrelevant. The examiner also notes that one of ordinary skill within the arts would understand that if it is desired to have a uniform thickness in the final product then one must start with a raw material that possess uniform thickness for it to be transferred into the final product. In the present modification one starts with a raw material with uniform thickness and then processes it in the same manner as the instant application. As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that by starting with a material with uniform thickness and subjecting it to a molding process with a press die and without using a “stopper” then the uniform thickness of the final product (along the recessed portion) would remain, see MPEP 2112.IV.
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art."
In response to the applicant’s arguments for claim 16, the examiner notes that Kim’260 has been replaced by Kim to meet the claimed features.
Applicant then argues that there is no reason to combine Akamatsu and Kim as one is a manufacturing technology and the other a processing technology. However, the examiner notes that Akamatsu teaches of a laminate film with uniform thickness and Kim teaches of using a laminate film to mold into a case. One of ordinary skill within the arts would understand that Akamatsu provides one with a raw material to then mold into packaging material for batteries [0003-0007, 0084, Akamatsu]. And that by starting with a material with uniform thickness then one may mold the product such that it does not form pin holes or delamination.
No other arguments were presented. The examiner maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sofield (DOI: doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(76)90304-9) discloses thickness uniformity of aluminum foils including evaporated Al foils having thickness uniformity better than 1%. Matsumoto (WO2017217452A1) discloses a polyamide and resin laminate film with a standard deviation of less than 0.200um to then be bonded to a metal layer (similar to present secondary reference). Suh (US20200331187A1) discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a pouch in which there is no pressing on the portion of the laminated film provided with the recessed portion. Yamashita (US20060093906A1) discloses a multi-layered laminated film containing an aluminum foil layer and a resin layer having thermally bonding properties used as a case for a secondary battery [0038-0043]. The casing is a molded-type product that is evenly formed without a biased thickness (without deviations in thickness) upon press-molding [0041, 0060]. Such uniform thickness of the laminated film prevents the formation of pinholes and tearing [0039-0041]. Similarly Seo (US20190363314A1) explains that laminate pouch battery ([0003]) sealing portions may crack or be easily damaged exposing the battery to moisture and air [0008] therefore uniform laminate sealing portion thickness is important to prevent damage by increasing the strength of the seal ([0033]).
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724