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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim interpretation
The claim limitation found in Claim 1 line 3 recites “a cutting process of slit-cutting a portion of a pouch in an arc-shape to form a cutting part”. The examiner notes that the limitation is meet if at least a portion of the pouch is cut into an arc shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In the instant specification it is noted that: 1) a radius of the arc of the cutting part may be 4 mm to 12 mm [0036]. 2) the cutting process may be spaced at a predetermined interval of 4 mm to 12 mm from the accommodating part [0038].
The inclusion of these two features into newly presented claim 14 presents an independent claim that that is non-obvious
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The examiner maintains that the teachings of Fukuda (US20020157242A1) and Shin (KR20200075989A) and/or Lee (KR20170101632A) reads on the applicant’s independent claim 1 and 14. The teachings of Fukuda, Shin, and Lee however, do not render newly presented claim 14 with the features 1) and 2) listed above as obvious and as such is considered to be allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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) 1-4 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US20020157242A1) and in view of Shin (KR20200075989A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a method for manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising: a cutting process of slit-cutting (122) a portion of a pouch in an arc shape to form a cutting part [0147, 0163, fig. 13, Fukuda teaches using a pair of slits with a curved shape to improve the embossing process of the packaging material]; a forming process of forming an accommodating part (107) in the pouch to accommodate an electrode assembly in the pouch after the cutting process [0136-0137, Fukuda]; moreover one of ordinary skill would appreciate that placing the assembly after cutting ensures the assembly is not accidentally cut or damaged in the process and an accommodating process of accommodating the electrode assembly in the accommodating part of the pouch after the forming process [0136-0137, fig. 14, Fukuda]; wherein, in the forming process, the cutting part is an arc-shaped cutting line in a plan view [fig. 13, Fukuda], and wherein in the cutting process, the arc- shaped cutting line of the cutting part has an arc shape having an angle of 60 degrees to 285 degrees [fig. 13, Fukuda depicts curved slits that are in the shape of a hemi-oval. The examiner is interpreting this to be an arc shape having an angle of 180o. Additionally, Fukuda depicts curves of 90o in these slits.]
Fukuda is explicitly silent to 1) the accommodating part being in a bent shape and 2) in the cutting process, the portion of the pouch is adjacent to an inner corner portion in the accommodating part having the bent shape.
In regards to 1) Shin discloses a battery pouch (13a) formed with a bent accommodating part to accommodate a bent secondary battery [0121-0126, fig. 21-23, Shin].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Fukuda such that accommodating part was in the shape of a polygon with a bent shape as depicted by Shin in figures 21 and 22. Doing so would allow for one to accommodate an amorphous or atypical electrode assembly [0130, fig. 23, Shin].
In regards to 2) Fukuda does teach that the slit cuts (122) as a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn [0147, Fukuda]. The cuts may be formed either parallel or perpendicular towards the ridges of corrugation (121) [0147-0148, fig. 16, Fukuda]. Finally Fukuda teaches that the cuts allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the embossing (107, “accommodating”) part of the work piece between the two cuts [0150-0151, 0165, Fukuda].
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that in Fukuda as currently modified there are a plurality of locations in which the slit cuts may be located, for simplicity and clarity the examiner is presenting a single example as depicted in the examiners annotated figure below, in which a pair of slits are located adjacent to the “inner corner” and “outer corner” of the accommodating portion to be formed. This depicted figure is still A) a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn. B) These curved slits would still be parallel and/or perpendicular to the ridges of corrugation. C) these cuts are placed such that the area between them can be drawn. Because these proposed cuts follow what Fukuda teaches one can anticipate that this would still allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the accommodating portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated examiner’s figure depicting the location of a pair of cuts of currently modified Fukuda that fits with the teachings of Fukuda.
The examiner notes that in the present modification the cutting part is convex toward the inner corner portion of the accommodating part having the bent shape.
PNG
media_image2.png
508
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated figure as depicted in the rejection of claim 1 pointing to the convex cutting part
Regarding claim 2, modified Fukuda discloses the electrode assembly (60) has a shape bent at a right angle [0129, fig. 23, Shin], and wherein, in the forming process, the accommodating part (133a) has a shape bent at a right angle [0121-0127, fig. 21-22, Shin].
Regarding claim 3, modified Fukuda discloses the electrode assembly is bent in an "L" shape [0129, fig. 23, Shin], and wherein, in the forming process, the accommodating part is bent in an "L" shape [0121-0127, fig. 21-22, Shin].
Regarding claim 4, modified Fukuda discloses the forming process, the accommodating part has a shape corresponding to the electrode assembly [0129-0131, fig. 23, Shin].
Regarding claim 8, modified Fukuda discloses the cutting process, the arc shape has an angle of 120 degrees to 210 degrees [fig. 13, Fukuda depicts curved slits that are in the shape of a hemi-oval. The examiner is interpreting this to be an arc shape having an angle of 180o].
Regarding claim 9, modified Fukuda discloses the cutting process, the cutting part is spaced at a predetermined interval from the accommodating part [0146, fig. 11, Fukuda teaches that the cutting blade is located at a position either upstream from the embossing machine or wit may be incorporated in the embossing machine. Because the cutting is performed at a specific location within the apparatus and then fed into a section for forming the embossing (“accommodating”) part there will be a predetermined interval between the cutting and embossing section. ].
Regarding claim 10, modified Fukuda discloses the forming process, the inner corner portion of the pouch is recessed in a direction of the accommodating part in a plan view [fig. 21-23, Shin depicts the inner corner being recessed in a direction of the accommodating part].
Regarding claim 11, modified Fukuda discloses A secondary battery manufactured by the method for manufacturing the secondary battery of claim 1 [0136, fig. 14, Fukuda and 0121-0132 and fig. 21-23, Shin].
In further search and consideration of new claims 12-13:
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US20020157242A1) and in view of Lee (KR20170101632A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a method for manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising: a cutting process of slit-cutting (122) a portion of a pouch in an arc shape to form a cutting part [0147, 0163, fig. 13, Fukuda teaches using a pair of slits with a curved shape to improve the embossing process of the packaging material]; a forming process of forming an accommodating part (107) in the pouch to accommodate an electrode assembly in the pouch after the cutting process [0136-0137, Fukuda]; moreover one of ordinary skill would appreciate that placing the assembly after cutting ensures the assembly is not accidentally cut or damaged in the process and an accommodating process of accommodating the electrode assembly in the accommodating part of the pouch after the forming process [0136-0137, fig. 14, Fukuda]; wherein, in the forming process, the cutting part is an arc-shaped cutting line in a plan view [fig. 13, Fukuda], and wherein in the cutting process, the arc- shaped cutting line of the cutting part has an arc shape having an angle of 60 degrees to 285 degrees [fig. 13, Fukuda depicts curved slits that are in the shape of a hemi-oval. The examiner is interpreting this to be an arc shape having an angle of 180o. Additionally, Fukuda depicts curves of 90o in these slits.]
Fukuda is explicitly silent to 1) the accommodating part being in a bent shape and 2) in the cutting process, the portion of the pouch is adjacent to an inner corner portion in the accommodating part having the bent shape.
In regards to 1) Lee discloses an electrode plate with a curved (“bent”) portion and battery pouch (500) formed to accommodate the curved (“bent”) shape of the electrode [0042-0044, 0054, fig. 4-5, Lee].
Lee further teaches that batteries with this shape have shortened paths for generated heat to travel outside of the electrode assembly [0044-0046, Lee]. For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that anything that is not straight is considered to read on “bent”.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Fukuda such that accommodating part was in the shape that could accommodate electrode plates with curved portions. Doing so would allow for one to accommodate an electrode with a shape capable of improved heat dissipation [0054, Lee].
In regards to 2) Fukuda does teach that the slit cuts (122) as a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn [0147, Fukuda]. The cuts may be formed either parallel or perpendicular towards the ridges of corrugation (121) [0147-0148, fig. 16, Fukuda]. Finally Fukuda teaches that the cuts allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the embossing (107, “accommodating”) part of the work piece between the two cuts [0150-0151, 0165, Fukuda].
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that in Fukuda as currently modified there are a plurality of locations in which the slit cuts may be located, for simplicity and clarity the examiner is presenting a single example as depicted in the examiners annotated figure below, in which a pair of slits are located adjacent to the “inner corner” and “outer corner” of the accommodating portion to be formed. This depicted figure is still A) a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn. B) These curved slits would still be parallel and/or perpendicular to the ridges of corrugation. C) these cuts are placed such that the area between them can be drawn. Because these proposed cuts follow what Fukuda teaches one can anticipate that this would still allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the accommodating portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
853
974
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee figure 4 depicts an electrode with curved slits. The modification to the accommodation portion of Fukuda would place curved slits on the workpiece in the area outside of the curved slits of the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 12, modified Fukuda discloses the cutting part as continuously arcuate [see above rejection of claim 1 and examiner interpretation for annotated figure 4 (Lee) depicting a continuously arcuate shape].
Regarding claim 13, Fukuda teaches that the cut slit may be curved as long as they extend perpendicularly to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn [0147, Fukuda].
Modified Fukuda depicts a modified embodiment where the cut slits are formed by two hemi-circles (180o).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that Fukuda as presently modified could change the shape (angle) of the curved slits as long as they extend in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which workpiece is drawn to an angle of 120-210o, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. By including a pair of cuts in between the section of the workpiece to be drawn, one can obtain a smooth drawing of the workpiece [0150, Fukuda].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Fukuda such that the cutting part of the work piece was 120-210 degrees. Doing so would 1) be a matter of mere change in shape or size to form accommodation portions for electrode assemblies with curved electrodes, see MPEP 2144.04.IV. 2) would still allow for the curved slits to extend perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is being drawn [0147, Fukuda].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US20020157242A1) and in view of Shin (KR20200075989A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a method for manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising: a cutting process of slit-cutting (122) a portion of a pouch in an arc shape to form a cutting part [0147, 0163, fig. 13, Fukuda teaches using a pair of slits with a curved shape to improve the embossing process of the packaging material]; a forming process of forming an accommodating part (107) in the pouch to accommodate an electrode assembly in the pouch after the cutting process [0136-0137, Fukuda]; moreover one of ordinary skill would appreciate that placing the assembly after cutting ensures the assembly is not accidentally cut or damaged in the process and an accommodating process of accommodating the electrode assembly in the accommodating part of the pouch after the forming process [0136-0137, fig. 14, Fukuda]; wherein, in the forming process, the cutting part is an arc-shaped cutting line in a plan view [fig. 13, Fukuda], and wherein in the cutting process, the arc- shaped cutting line of the cutting part has an arc shape having an angle of 60 degrees to 285 degrees [fig. 13, Fukuda depicts curved slits that are in the shape of a hemi-oval. The examiner is interpreting this to be an arc shape having an angle of 180o. Additionally, Fukuda depicts curves of 90o in these slits.]
Fukuda is explicitly silent to 1) the electrode assembly and accommodating part being in a bent “L” shape and 2) in the cutting process, the portion of the pouch is adjacent to an inner corner portion in the accommodating part having the bent shape. 3) wherein the cutting part is continuously arcuate.
In regards to 1) Shin discloses a battery pouch (13a) formed with a bent accommodating part to accommodate a bent secondary battery [0121-0126, fig. 21-23, Shin], wherein the electrode assembly is bent in an "L" shape [0129, fig. 23, Shin], and wherein, in the forming process, the accommodating part is bent in an "L" shape [0121-0127, fig. 21-22, Shin].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Fukuda such that accommodating part was in the shape of a polygon with a bent shape as depicted by Shin in figures 21 and 22. Doing so would allow for one to accommodate an amorphous or atypical electrode assembly [0130, fig. 23, Shin].
In regards to 2) Fukuda does teach that the slit cuts (122) as a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn [0147, Fukuda]. The cuts may be formed either parallel or perpendicular towards the ridges of corrugation (121) [0147-0148, fig. 16, Fukuda]. Finally Fukuda teaches that the cuts allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the embossing (107, “accommodating”) part of the work piece between the two cuts [0150-0151, 0165, Fukuda].
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that in Fukuda as currently modified there are a plurality of locations in which the slit cuts may be located, for simplicity and clarity the examiner is presenting a single example as depicted in the examiners annotated figure below, in which a pair of slits are located adjacent to the “inner corner” and “outer corner” of the accommodating portion to be formed. This depicted figure is still A) a pair of cuts extending perpendicular to the direction in which the workpiece is drawn. B) These curved slits would still be parallel and/or perpendicular to the ridges of corrugation. C) these cuts are placed such that the area between them can be drawn. Because these proposed cuts follow what Fukuda teaches one can anticipate that this would still allow for a smooth and accurate drawing of the accommodating portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated examiner’s figure depicting the location of a pair of cuts of currently modified Fukuda that fits with the teachings of Fukuda.
In regards to 3), the examiner notes that “arcuate” means to be curved or shaped like a bow. To be “continuously arcuate” means to be continuously shaped like a bow, as noted in the conclusion section Kooi, in their PhD thesis provides numerous examples of bow shapes.
The examiner notes that Fukuda as presently modified posses a cut that is “continuously arcuate”. In an effort to expedite prosecution, should the applicant disagree with this stance the examiner notes that prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to have the cutting portion be continuously arcuate as a matter of mere change in shape, see MPEP 2144.04.IV. Doing so would still provide a pair of curved slits which may be used to improve the embossing process of the packaging material [0147, 0163, fig. 13, Fukuda].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant argues that the office action “effectively has four cuts, with pairs of cuts connected to each other”. This is not accurate as the rejection only uses two curved cuts. The examiner also notes that in the event that “two cuts” are connected to each other, then this forms a single connected cut. Applicant argues that there is no motivation in the prior art to have two connected cuts. The examiner does not propose connecting two cuts but rather forming two cuts such that the piece to be drawn is in between the two cuts. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, Fukada does teach this. Applicant then argues that even if two cuts are connected the cuts would form a right angle. The examiner does not find this persuasive as this is in relation to a rectangular accommodation section being formed as does not take into consideration how one would amend this for a different shapes. The examiner notes that one may choose to have a right angle as alleged by the applicant but there is nothing to support that this is the only obvious choice.
Applicant then argues the use of Lee in the rejections of claim 12 and 13. Applicant argues that the convex shape of Lee is toward a curved surface and not an inner corner portion. The examiner notes that curves surfaces do posses an inner corner as corners may be curved. Applicant then argues that the cutting portions are shorter than the edge of the accommodation portion being formed, making them ineffective. This is only an allegation and the applicant does not provide support for this allegation.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Kooi, “On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow” PhD-thesis.
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 at 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 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights