DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 21st, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21st, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
"A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)" (see MPEP 2173.03).
On pg. 8 of the “Remarks,” applicant argues that the amended claim language requires structural evidence of the pouch case being pressed at its bent sealing part (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”). However, the amended claim language uses different terminology (“evidence of being heat-sealed”) and does not clearly convey “structural evidence of the pouch case being pressed at its bent sealing part” as intended. Evidence of being heat-sealed appears to require structural evidence of heat application to an outer surface. It is unclear how the sealed material can show evidence of heat application; when a material is sealed, it is typically not obvious whether or not a cold or heated sealing was performed. As the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor clarification, the claim scope is deemed indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on January 21st, 2026:
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 16 are amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Claim 1 is amended to specify that the sealing surface is of the sealing tool and that the inclined surface of the sealing surface of the sealing tool is inclined by an acute angle relative to the central surface of the sealing surface of the sealing tool.
Claim 16 is amended to specify that the outer surface of the second sealing part bent to the inclination angle has structural evidence of being heat-sealed by contact with a sealing surface of a sealing tool.
Claim 21 is newly added as dependent on Claim 1 and specifies that the acute angle ranges from 5 to 50 degrees.
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, support for the amendment is found in applicant’s disclosure including the originally filed specification. Support for applicant’s amendment to Claim 16 is not clearly found in applicant’s disclosure.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20130029214 A1) in view of Park et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 101428458 B1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 21st, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claims 1 and 16 in which are based on the claims as amended.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the amendment specifying that the sealing tool is inclined by an acute angle differentiates from Park et al.’s right-angled tool; regarding Claim 16, applicant argues that the bent portion of the sealing part having an inclination angle pressed by a sealing tool is not taught by Park et al. Examiner notes that the rejection of Claims 1 and 16 include a modification of the teachings of Tamura by Park et al.; applicant appears to attack solely Park et al. rather than the described combination.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, although Park et al. teaches a right-angled tool, primary reference Tamura teaches a sealing tool with an acute inclination angle with respect to a central surface as described in the rejection below.
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
Regarding Claim 1, the battery cell manufacturing method of Tamura is modified by Park et al. to include the formation of an inclined surface (second sealing part) along an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface and to avoid contact between the sealing tool and the electrode assembly (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”). When performing the described modification, it is found to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the sealing tool of Tamura to include an inclined surface configured to face the outer second sealing part formed at an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface; this method is similar to Tamura et al.’s disclosure of an inclined surface formed by a sealing tool in a second sealing direction toward the electrode assembly (see rejection below). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved sealing reliability and reliability of the laminate case as a whole (Park et al., para. 23).
Regarding Claim 16, applicant argues that the amended claim language requires structural evidence of the pouch case being pressed at its bent sealing part (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”); however, the amended claim language does not convey this intended meaning. The amended claim language requires structural evidence of being “heat-sealed” in which the scope is unclear. Based on the intended meaning of the claim language described in the “Remarks”, the rejection below is based on a modification of Tamura by Park et al.; specifically, the combination of both Tamura and Park et al. include the pressing of the portion bent to an inclination angle by the sealing tool. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant further states that the sealing performance of the invention is unexpectedly superior (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”).
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
As objective evidence is not provided in the form of an affidavit or declaration, comparing the claimed subject matter to the closest prior art, applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are deemed unpersuasive to overcome the obviousness rejections.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Tamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20130029214 A1) ("Tamura ")
Previously Cited Park et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 101428458 B1) (“Park et al.”)
Kim et al. (Kim et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20180118995 A) (“Kim et al.”)
Hong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160096417 A) (“Hong et al.”)
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.
[AltContent: textbox (Figs. 5A-5B (Tamura))]
PNG
media_image1.png
725
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20130029214 A1) in view of Park et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 101428458 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tamura teaches a device for manufacturing a battery cell comprising:
a sealing tool (laminate forming die (501, 502)) configured to form a sealing part (sealed portion) on an outer peripheral surface of a battery case (laminate case (201)) in which an electrode assembly (10) is mounted (Fig. 5A, para. 62-64), the sealing part comprises portions analogous to a first sealing part (corresponding to a central surface) and a second sealing part (corresponding to the inclined surface) (see annotated Fig. 5A and 5B).
the sealing tool comprises a sealing surface (501f, 502f) configured to be brought into contact with the outer peripheral surface of the battery case (Fig. 5A, para. 64).
the sealing surface of the sealing tool comprises a central surface configured to face the first sealing part and an inclined surface configured to face the second sealing part extending from one side (right side) of the central surface (see annotated Fig. 5A-5B). The inclined surface is inclined by an acute angle relative to the central surface of the sealing surface of the sealing tool (Fig. 5A-5B). Regarding the use of drawings as prior art, “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)” (see MPEP 2125(II)). Although Tamura is silent to a specific inclination angle of the sealing tool and does not disclose that the figures are to scale, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inclination angle is an acute angle less than 90 degrees.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4 (Park et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
469
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tamura does not teach the sealing surface of the sealing tool comprising an inclined surface configured to extend along an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface of the sealing tool and not in contact with the electrode assembly.
As shown in annotated Figure 4, Park et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a sealing tool (70) including an analogous central surface configured to face an equivalent first sealing part (para. 9-10, Fig. 4); an inclined surface corresponding to an equivalent second sealing part extends from both sides of the central surface and is formed by pressing the sealing tool (70) (para. 12, 68, Fig. 4). Further, the sealing tool (70) does not overlap the electrode assembly (10) as shown and is not in contact with the electrode assembly (Fig. 4). Park et al. teaches benefits of said configuration such as providing a strong sealing strength and excellent sealing performance to the pouch type secondary battery (Park et al., para. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery cell manufacturing method of Tamura by Park et al. to include the formation of an inclined surface (second sealing part) along an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface and to avoid contact between the sealing tool and the electrode assembly. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sealing tool of Tamura to form said outer second sealing part as modified by Park et al. When forming said outer second sealing part, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the shape of the sealing tool of Tamura to include an inclined surface configured to face the inclined second sealing part formed at an outer direction of the sealing part (away from the electrode assembly) with respect to the central surface; similarly, as described above, Tamura teaches the sealing tool comprising an inclined surface facing a second sealing part in which is formed at an inner direction of the sealing part (toward the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a strong sealing strength and excellent sealing performance to the pouch type secondary battery (Park et al., para. 10).
Additionally, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). As described above, the results of modifying the shape of the sealing tool to include an inclined surface at an outside part of the sealing portion would be expected as Tamura teaches a sealing tool comprising an inclined surface brought in contact with and forming an inclined inner second heat sealing part, while Park et al. teaches an inclination angle formed on both end surfaces of a central surface of a sealing part; one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the sealing tool of Tamura corresponding to the outer second sealing part to control the size of the inclination angle and provide a uniform pressing force on both second sealing parts (outer and inner) to improve the seal strength. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to avoid contact between the sealing tool and electrode assembly to prevent damaging the electrode assembly by a pressing force. Further, in this case, the results would be expected as Tamura teaches a sealing tool comprising an inclination angle and benefits thereof as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As described in Claim 1, Tamura teaches the inclined surface extending from the central surface in a width direction of the sealing tool as indicated in annotated Fig. 5A. Tamura is modified by Park et al. to include an inclined surface configured to extend along an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface and is not in contact with the electrode assembly; it would be obvious to further modify the sealing tool of Tamura to include an inclined surface at said outer second sealing part as described above. Therefore, it would be obvious to further modify the inclined surface of the sealing tool facing the outer second sealing portion to extend from the central surface in a width direction of the sealing tool. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Tamura teaches the part in which is sealed (sealing part) located on an outer peripheral surface of the battery cell through which an electrode lead (extending from electrode tab (15)) passes and protrudes toward an outside of the battery case from the electrode assembly; the tab or lead portion includes a resin (32) or film located on upper and lower parts of the electrode lead, respectively, (Fig. 5A, para 44).
Regarding Claim 5, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As shown in the annotated Fig. 5A and 5B, Tamura teaches the device is configured such that in use, the central surface and the first sealing part, and the inclined surface and the second sealing part are sequentially brought into contact with each other (Fig. 5A-5B). It would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the modified outer second sealing part and inclined surface of the sealing tool as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the sealing tool of Tamura corresponding to the outer second sealing part to control the size of the inclination angle and provide a uniform pressing force on both second sealing parts (outer and inner) to improve the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 5A and 5B, Tamura teaches that the device is configured such that in use, while the central surface is brought into contact with the first sealing part, the second sealing part is inclined or bent along an inclination angle of the inclined surface (para. 55, Fig. 5A-5B). It would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the modified outer second sealing part and inclined surface of the sealing tool as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above to control the size of the inclination angle and provide a uniform pressing force on both second sealing parts (outer and inner) to improve the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamura teaches the sealing surface (501f, 502f) configured to form a heat-sealing part between the sealing part and the lead film (32) (para. 43,62; Fig. 5A-5B).
Regarding Claim 8, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. As shown in the annotated Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, Tamura teaches portions analogous to a heat-sealing part including a first heat-sealing part corresponding to the central surface and a second heat-sealing part corresponding to the inclined surface; the central surface is configured to form a first heat-sealing part between the first sealing part and the lead film, and the inclined surface is configured to form the second heat-sealing part between the second sealing part and the lead film (para. 62, Fig. 5A-5B). It would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the modified outer second sealing part and inclined surface of the sealing tool as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above to control the size of the inclination angle and provide a uniform pressing force on both second sealing parts (outer and inner) to improve the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 (Tamura))]
PNG
media_image3.png
477
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Tamura teaches the battery case being made of a layer or film including an inner layer (921, 922) and outer layer (923) (para. 4, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. As shown in Fig. 5B, Tamura teaches the device configured such that in use, a first material contained in the inner layer of the first sealing part is heated and pressed in which the first material would be eluted in a direction away from the pressing force of the central surface (Fig. 5A-5B, para. 62).
Regarding Claim 11, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Tamura teaches the inclined surface including integrated heaters configured to heat seal the first material together with the inner layer of the second sealing part (para. 62, Fig. 5A-5B). It would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the modified outer second sealing part and inclined surface of the sealing tool as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above to provide a uniform pressing force on both second sealing parts (outer and inner) to improve the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 12, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Tamura teaches the first material forming an inner layer of the first sealing part and second sealing part and is contained in the second heat-sealing part (para. 69, Fig. 5A-5B). When performing the described modification by Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the outer second sealing part to provide uniform adhesion at both second sealing parts (outer and inner) further improving the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 13, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Tamura teaches the device configured such that in use, an inner polypropylene layer analogous to a first material would be eluted to a first length based on a boundary line formed between the central surface and the inclined surface during heat sealing (para. 74). When performing the described modification by Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would be obvious for said configuration to apply at the outer inclined surface to provide uniform adhesion at both second sealing parts (outer and inner) further improving the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Tamura teaches that the inclined surface of the sealing tool is used to form the second sealing part comprising the first material, the width of the first length formed by the eluted first material would correspond to the width of the inclined surface; therefore, the device is configured such that in use, the width of the inclined surface would be slightly greater than or equal to the width of the first length (Fig. 5A-5B). When performing the described modification by Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the outer second sealing part to provide uniform adhesion at both second sealing parts (outer and inner) further improving the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 15, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tamura teaches that the sealing tool includes a first sealing tool (501) configured to press an upper of the battery case part (201) and a second sealing tool (502) configured to press a lower part of the battery case (Fig. 5A, para. 106). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 16-18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20130029214 A1) in view of Park et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 101428458 B1) and further in view of Kim et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20180118995 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Tamura teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly (910) and a battery case (920) in which the electrode assembly is mounted within (para. 4, Fig. 1). A sealing part is formed on an outer peripheral surface of the battery case and comprises a first sealing part and second sealing part, wherein the second sealing part is inclined or bent to an inclination angle with respect to the first sealing part (para. 68, annotated Fig. 5A-5B). The second sealing part corresponds to a heat-sealing part formed by the sealing surface (501f) (para. 43;62, Fig. 5A-5B). As shown in Fig. 5B, Tamura teaches the first material contained in the inner layer of the first sealing part being pressed and heated by the central surface and in turn, the first material would be eluted in a direction away from the pressing force of the central surface in which the flat part would be heat-sealed together with the first material to form the heat-sealing part (Fig. 5A-5B, para. 4-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tamura to provide a laminate case battery with improved sealing reliability and stable quality (para. 8). Tamura teaches that an outer surface of the second sealing part bent to the inclination angle is heat-sealed by contact with a sealing surface of the sealing tool (laminate forming die 502); the outer surface is bent or formed with the sealing tool indicating evidence of being pressed by the sealing tool ([0043], [0062]).
Tamara does not teach wherein the second sealing part is located away from the electrode assembly with respect to the first sealing part and is bent relative to an outer direction away from the electrode assembly, the second sealing part bent to the inclination angle not being in contact with the electrode assembly; and wherein a first material contained in the first sealing part is eluted in a direction away from the first sealing part toward the second sealing part.
As shown in annotated Figure 4, Park et al. teaches an analogous second sealing part located away from the electrode assembly with respect to the first sealing part in which is bent upward relative to an outer direction away from the electrode assembly (10) with respect to the first sealing part; the second sealing part is bent to the inclination angle and is not in contact with the electrode assembly (para. 10-12, Fig. 4). A first material (inner sealant layer (69)) is contained in the first sealing part and is discharged or eluted to an outer side of the electrode assembly corresponding to a direction away from the first sealing part toward the second sealing part (para. 12, Fig. 4). Park et al. teaches benefits of said configuration such as providing a strong sealing strength and excellent sealing performance to the pouch type secondary battery (Park et al., para. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery cell of Tamara by Park et al. to include a second sealing part located away from the electrode assembly with respect to the first sealing part and is bent relative to an outer direction away from the electrode assembly; the second sealing part bent to the inclination angle and not in contact with the electrode assembly; and wherein a first material contained in the first sealing part is eluted in a direction away from the first sealing part toward the second sealing part. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a strong sealing strength and excellent sealing performance to the pouch type secondary battery (Park et al., para. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery cell manufacturing method of Tamura by Park et al. to include the formation of an inclined surface (second sealing part) along an outer direction of the sealing part away from the electrode assembly with respect to the central surface and to avoid contact between the sealing tool and the electrode assembly.
Tamara et al. does not teach that the sealing tool heats an outer peripheral surface of the case as supported by para. 55 of the specification (if intended by the amendment, see rejection under U.S.C. § 112(b) above).
Kim et al. teaches a sealing apparatus for sealing a pouch of a secondary battery in which heats and presses a rim portion of the pouch ([0011]). Kim et al. describes that the described configuration prevents corrosion, swelling, and dielectric breakdown ([0045]); further Kim et al. teaches that it is possible to prevent a crack within the sealing layer due to external impact and folding of the sealing part ([0046]).
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 sealing surface of the sealing tool of Tamura to include heating capability to heat the outer surface of a pouch case as taught by Kim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent corrosion, swelling, and dielectric breakdown ([0045]); further Kim et al. teaches that it is possible to prevent a crack within the sealing layer due to external impact and folding of the sealing part ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 17, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Tamura teaches the sealing part (501, 502) located on an outer peripheral surface of the battery cell through which an electrode lead (electrode tab (15)) passes and protrudes toward an outside of the battery case from the electrode assembly; the tab or lead portion includes a resin (32) or film located on upper and lower parts of the electrode lead, respectively, (Fig. 5A, para 44). When performing the described modification by Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the outer second sealing part to provide uniform adhesion at both second sealing parts (outer and inner) further improving the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 18, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Tamura teaches the second sealing part (502) comprising an inclined part corresponding to a second heat-sealing part (para. 62, Fig. 5B). When a pressing force and heat is applied by the inclined surface of the sealing tool, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the second sealing part to include a flat part formed by the elution of the first material as indicated in the annotated Fig. 5B, in which the heat-sealing part is formed between the flat part and the lead film (para. 62, Fig. 5B). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tamura to provide a laminate case battery with improved sealing reliability and stable quality (para. 8). When performing the described modification by Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would be obvious to adopt said configuration for the outer second sealing part to provide uniform adhesion at both second sealing parts (outer and inner) further improving the seal strength. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 20, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. As applied above, Tamura teaches the first material contained in the heat-sealing part (para. 62, Fig. 5A-5B). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tamura to provide a laminate case battery with improved sealing reliability and stable quality (para. 8).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20130029214 A1) in view of Park et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 101428458 B1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160096417 A).
Regarding Claim 21, Tamura is modified by Park et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Tamura teaches that the inclined surface of the sealing surface of the sealing tool is inclined by an acute angle.
Tamura does not teach that the acute angle is 5 degrees to 50 degrees.
Hong et al. teaches a pouch type secondary battery in which a sealing tool (pressing jig) is pressed against an outer surface of the pouch forming an acute inclination angle of 45 degrees (para. 4-5, 34). The sealing devices provides reduced sealing failure due to geometric causes and improved watertightness and airtightness (para. 7-8).
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 sealing surface of the sealing tool of Tamura by Hong et al. to include an acute angle of 45 degrees, within the claimed range of 5 to 50 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide reduced sealing failure due to geometric causes and improved watertightness and airtightness as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 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, ULA RUDDOCK 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729