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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on October 31, 2025:
Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The 103 rejections to claims 1, 4-15 and 17-20 set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment and Applicant’s remarks;
The 103 rejection to claim 16 set forth in the previous Office Action stands.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 28, 2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 is directed to a battery case and held to be a type of product by process claim (or a battery case not limited by the shaping apparatus itself). “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or an apparatus which forms the product. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (or by a different apparatus). In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of
prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Heo et al., KR 10-2018-0032043 A (hereinafter "Heo") in view of Satoshi et al., JP 2002-050326 A (hereinafter "Satoshi").
Heo discloses an apparatus and method for shaping a battery case comprising a punch (12a) [1] 0010], a die (i.e., lower mold frame 14) [ld.] with an accommodation portion (i.e., recess 14a) [/d.] formed therein, and a holder (i.e., gripper 18) [/d.] to affix the edges of the laminate sheet.
Heo is, however, silent regarding the presence of an elastic separation membrane. However, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi discloses a battery package molding apparatus that employs a silicone-coated PET elastic polymer film (8) as a separator between the upper mold (5) and film (F) [11 0034-0038; Fig. 3]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided such a film to the molding apparatus of Heo with the expectation to produce an improved molding apparatus comprising an elastic separating film. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because, as taught by Satoshi [ld.], such a film reduces slipping of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 16, Heo discloses a battery case produced by the molding apparatus therein [1] 0048]. Heo further discloses that the laminate sheet is uniformly stretched when the case is produced [1] 0036], meaning that the smallest thickness is 100% of the thickness of the thickest portion, which is greater than the claimed range of 70% or more.
As noted above, the battery case produced above would have the same or similar thickness properties of claim 16, absent clear evidence to the contrary. While the battery case of claim 16 is dependent upon the apparatus of claim 1, no significant patentable weight is given to the specific features of the apparatus to that of the case. The presence or absence of an elastic separation membrane may not significantly impact the thickness of the battery case produced by Heo, much less modified Heo and there would be a reasonable expectation to produce a battery case having the same thickness relationship, and overall, a substantially uniform thickness throughout.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above, claim 16 is to the battery case itself. The specific features of the apparatus of claim 1 are not relied upon for patentability of the case alone.
The apparatus claims cover the apparatus features (punch, die, holder and elastic separator) all of which, used for producing the battery case of claim 16, are not effective limitations to the battery case of claim 16 itself.
As discussed above and set forth in the previous Office Action, the teachings of Heo and modified-Heo reasonably obviate the production of a battery case wherein the thickness of the smallest portion is 70% or more a thickness of the largest portion. For example, a substantially uniform battery case would have nominal thickness variance and any localized smaller portions would still be near the same thickness of the largest portion, ideally as uniform as possible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1, 3-9 and 17-20, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the battery case shaping apparatus comprising the punch, die, holder and elastic separator wherein the an elastic separator located under the punch in order to prevent direct contact between the punch and the laminate sheet, wherein the elastic separator is fixed to a lower part of a side surface of the holder.
As to claims 11-15, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the battery case shaping method comprising the disposing, fixing and pressing steps, including (b) fixing the laminate sheet to the die using the holder having the elastic separator attached to the holder; and (c) pressing the elastic separator and thereby shaping the laminate sheet using the punch.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 10-2019-0061572 discloses of forming a battery pouch using a punch and die where the thickness of the pouch can be uniformly formed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights