Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/951,159

ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 23, 2022
Examiner
HILTON, ALBERT MICHAEL
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
108 granted / 176 resolved
-3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
212
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.8%
+14.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 176 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 Nov 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 20170013809A, as read via machine translation) in view of Iino et al. (JP JP2020053121 , as read via machine translation). As to Claim 1, Jeong et al. discloses an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: an electrode assembly, a packaging film and a first tab wherein the first tab is electrically connected to the electrode assembly (see e.g. electrode assembly 130, battery case 120, and electrode lead 141, [0011] and Fig. 1), the packaging film comprises a first packaging film and a second packaging film located at two sides of the first tab respectively (see e.g. battery case 120, which is made of a laminate and comprises cover 121 and upper portion 125 on two sides of electrode tab 141, [0011] and Fig. 1), the first packaging film comprises a first sealing zone, the second packaging film comprises a second sealing zone, and the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone are bonded to seal the electrode assembly (i.e., the first and second films 121 and 125 seal together to form first and second sealing zones that are analogous to the first and second sealing zones shown in Figs. 7-10 of the Instant Specification. see e.g. [0011] and Fig. 11); wherein the first sealing zone comprises a first region and a second region, the first region covers a projection of the first tab on the first sealing zone, the second region connects to the first region, and a width of the second region is less than a width of the first region (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Illustration 1 below). PNG media_image1.png 351 742 media_image1.png Greyscale Illustration 1: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al.. The first packaging film of Jeong et al. further comprises a first non-sealing zone (i.e., first and second packaging films 121 and 125 are heat-sealed together in the shaded region of the periphery of the packaging films as shown in Fig. 9. The adjacent portion of the packaging films that are not sealed read on the claimed first non-sealing zone and second non-sealing zone. See e.g. [0020]-[0023], Fig. 9, and Illustration 2 below, the top layer of the unshaded region is the first non-sealing zone and the bottom layer of the unshaded region is the second non-sealing zone, analogous to the first and second non-sealing zones depicted in Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification), PNG media_image2.png 372 519 media_image2.png Greyscale Illustration 2: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al.. The second packaging film of Jeong et al. further comprises a second non-sealing zone (i.e., first and second packaging films 121 and 125 are heat-sealed together in the shaded region of the periphery of the packaging films as shown in Fig. 9. The adjacent portion of the packaging films that are not sealed read on the claimed first non-sealing zone and second non-sealing zone. See [0020]-[0023], Fig. 9, and Illustration 2 above, the top layer of the unshaded region is the first non-sealing zone and the bottom layer of the unshaded region is the second non-sealing zone, analogous to the first and second non-sealing zones depicted in Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification). Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the width of the second region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the first non-sealing zone comprises a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion, wherein the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second non- sealing zone comprises a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, wherein the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 (mm) and a distance between the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion is D (mm), wherein T2<D<10T2. However, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the width of the second region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region, when the widths of the first and second regions of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. are measured (see Illustration 1 above), it is determined that the width of the second region is 43% of the width of the first region, which lies within the claimed range of 40%-90%. While Jeong et al.’s figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, they nonetheless would have suggested a width of 43% to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the width of Jeong et al.’s second region to be 40%-90% of the width of the first region. Further regarding Claim 1, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the first non-sealing zone comprises a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion, wherein the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion, Jeong et al.’s first sealing zone is created by heat sealing a packaging film in a manner that is analogous to the thermally-sealed packaging film described in the Instant Specification (see e.g. [0020]-[0023] of Jeong et al. and compare with para [0050] of the Instant Specification. Also compare Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. and Fig. 1 of the Instant Specification). Because Jeong et al.’s structure is analogous to the instantly-claimed structure, it necessarily comprises analogous first and second connecting portions such that the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion in a thickness direction of the packaging film. Further regarding Claim 1, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second non- sealing zone comprises a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, wherein the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion, Jeong et al.’s second sealing zone is created by heat sealing a packaging film in a manner that is analogous to the thermally-sealed packaging film described in the Instant Specification (see [0020]-[0023] of Jeong et al. and compare with para [0050] of the Instant Specification. Also compare Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. and Fig. 1 of the Instant Specification). Because Jeong et al.’s structure is analogous to the instantly-claimed structure, it necessarily comprises analogous third and fourth connecting portions such that the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion in a thickness direction of the packaging film. Further regarding Claim 1, Iino et al., also working in the field of laminated pouch-style batteries, teaches an electrochemical apparatus comprising a packaging film having an analogous second region and second sealing zone that together form a thickness T2 (see e.g. Iino et al.: T2, [0048], Figs. 6-7 and Illustration 3 below and compare with Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification), as well as a distance D between structures that are analogous to the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion (see e.g. Iino et al.: T1, [0048], Figs. 6-7 and Illustration 3 below). PNG media_image3.png 207 404 media_image3.png Greyscale Illustration 3: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 6 of Iino et al.. Iino et al. further teaches that the distance D is preferable 1.15 times or more the distance T2, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of T2<D<10T2 (i.e., T1 is 1.15 times or more T2, see e.g. Iino et al.: [0048]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the electrochemical apparatus of Jeong et al. such that the second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 (mm) and a distance between the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion is D (mm), wherein T2<D<10T2, because Iino et al. teaches that a sealing structure with these dimensions is preferable. As to Claim 3, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone, and does not teach that the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90°. However. while Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus, the Examiner submits that the first sealing zone must necessarily be thinner than the non-sealing zone because the non-sealing zone contains an open space. Because of this, the first connecting portion must necessarily form an angle that is greater than 0° with the first sealing zone. Further, the only way for the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone to be greater than 90° would be if the first sealing zone was laterally forced into the open cavity of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s packaging film, which is not disclosed in Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s specification. As such, the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus must necessarily lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed range of greater than 0° and less than 90°. As to Claim 4, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone, and does not teach that the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90°. However, while Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus, the Examiner submits that the third sealing zone must necessarily be thinner than the non-sealing zone because the non-sealing zone contains an open space. Because of this, the third connecting portion must necessarily form an angle that is greater than 0° with the second sealing zone. Further, the only way for the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone to be greater than 90° would be if the third sealing zone was laterally forced into the open cavity of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s packaging film, which is not disclosed in Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s specification. As such, the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus must necessarily lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed range of greater than 0° and less than 90°. As to Claim 6, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the thickness of the first region and the second sealing zone and does not teach an electrochemical apparatus wherein the first region and the second sealing zone form a thickness T1 (mm), wherein T2<T1<4T2. However, the electrochemical apparatus of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. comprises a second region and a second sealing zone (i.e., the first and second films seal together to form first and second sealing zones that are analogous to the first and second sealing zones shown in Figs. 7-10 of the Instant Specification (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 9 and Illustration 1 above). The second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 that is analogous to the instantly-claimed T2 (i.e., the thickness of the apparatus at the second region is T2). Additionally, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s apparatus comprises a first region and a second sealing zone that have a thickness T1 that is analogous to the claimed T1 (i.e., thickness of the apparatus at the first region is T1). The difference between T1 and T2 is that the thickness T1 includes the thickness of the electrode tab (see Figs. 7A and 10 of the Instant Application). As such, T1 is necessarily larger than T2, so that T1 > T2. Further, Fig. 1 of Jeong et al. shows that the electrode tab (141/142) in the first region is roughly the same thickness as the first and second films that form thickness T2 of the second region. As such, the dimension T1 of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is less than four times the dimension T2, and Jeong et al.’s apparatus satisfies the claimed relationship of T2 < T1 ≤ 4T2 . As to Claim 7, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. However, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the packaging tension between the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone and does not explicitly disclose that the packaging tension between the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone is 1 N/mm-10 N/mm. However, the first and second sealing zones of Jeong et al. are made from conventional aluminum laminate sheets that are thermally fused together (Jeong et al.: [0006], [0011]). As described in the Instant Specification, the instantly-claimed first and second sealing zones are also formed from thermally fusing conventional aluminum laminate sheets (Instant Specification: [0003] and [0050]). While Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the packaging tension between the first and second sealing zones, a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the scope of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s first and second sealing zones reads on the structure and composition of the claimed apparatus, and lacking any compositional distinction between the claimed sealing zones and those of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the packaging tension between the first and second sealing zones of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s apparatus would also have the property of lying in the range of 1 N/mm–10 N/mm. As to Claim 8, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the first sealing zone further comprises a third region, the third region connects to the first region, and a width of the third region is less than the width of the first region (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 9 and Illustration 4 below. ). PNG media_image4.png 367 667 media_image4.png Greyscale Illustration 4: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al.. As to Claim 9, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 8. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. does not teach that the width of the third region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region. However, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the width of the third region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region, when the widths of the first and third regions of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. are measured (see Illustration 4 above), it is determined that the width of the third region is 43% of the width of the first region, which lies within the claimed range of 40%-90%. While Jeong et al.’s figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, they nonetheless would have suggested a width of 43% to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the width of Jeong et al.’s third region to be 40%-90% of the width of the first region. As to Claim 10, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second tab, wherein the second tab is electrically connected to the electrode assembly (see e.g. lead 142, which is connected to electrode assembly 130, Jeong et al.: [0011] and Fig. 1), the second tab is located on the same side of the electrode assembly as the first tab (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 1, first tab 141 and second tab 142 are on the same side); and the first sealing zone further comprises a fourth region, wherein the fourth region covers a projection of the second tab on the first sealing zone, the second region connects to the fourth region, and the width of the second region is less than a width of the fourth region (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 1 and Illustration 4 above). As to Claim 12, Jeong et al. discloses an electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: an electrode assembly, a packaging film and a first tab wherein the first tab is electrically connected to the electrode assembly (see e.g. electrode assembly 130, battery case 120, and electrode lead 141, [0011] and Fig. 1), the packaging film comprises a first packaging film and a second packaging film located at two sides of the first tab respectively (see e.g. battery case 120, which is made of a laminate and comprises cover 121 and upper portion 125 on two sides of electrode tab 141, [0011] and Fig. 1), the first packaging film comprises a first sealing zone, the second packaging film comprises a second sealing zone, and the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone are bonded to seal the electrode assembly (i.e., the first and second films 121 and 125 seal together to form first and second sealing zones that are analogous to the first and second sealing zones shown in Figs. 7-10 of the Instant Specification. see e.g. [0011] and Fig. 11); wherein the first sealing zone comprises a first region and a second region, the first region covers a projection of the first tab on the first sealing zone, the second region connects to the first region, and a width of the second region is less than a width of the first region (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Illustration 1 above). The first packaging film of Jeong et al. further comprises a first non-sealing zone (i.e., first and second packaging films 121 and 125 are heat-sealed together in the shaded region of the periphery of the packaging films as shown in Fig. 9. The adjacent portion of the packaging films that are not sealed read on the claimed first non-sealing zone and second non-sealing zone. See e.g. [0020]-[0023], Fig. 9, and Illustration 2 above, the top layer of the unshaded region is the first non-sealing zone and the bottom layer of the unshaded region is the second non-sealing zone, analogous to the first and second non-sealing zones depicted in Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification), The second packaging film of Jeong et al. further comprises a second non-sealing zone (i.e., first and second packaging films 121 and 125 are heat-sealed together in the shaded region of the periphery of the packaging films as shown in Fig. 9. The adjacent portion of the packaging films that are not sealed read on the claimed first non-sealing zone and second non-sealing zone. See [0020]-[0023], Fig. 9, and Illustration 2 above, the top layer of the unshaded region is the first non-sealing zone and the bottom layer of the unshaded region is the second non-sealing zone, analogous to the first and second non-sealing zones depicted in Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification). Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the width of the second region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the first non-sealing zone comprises a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion, wherein the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second non- sealing zone comprises a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, wherein the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion. Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 (mm) and a distance between the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion is D (mm), wherein T2<D<10T2. However, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the width of the second region is 40%-95% of the width of the first region, when the widths of the first and second regions of Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. are measured (see Illustration 1 above), it is determined that the width of the second region is 43% of the width of the first region, which lies within the claimed range of 40%-90%. While Jeong et al.’s figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, they nonetheless would have suggested a width of 43% to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the width of Jeong et al.’s second region to be 40%-90% of the width of the first region. Further regarding Claim 12, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the first non-sealing zone comprises a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion, wherein the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion, Jeong et al.’s first sealing zone is created by heat sealing a packaging film in a manner that is analogous to the thermally-sealed packaging film described in the Instant Specification (see e.g. [0020]-[0023] of Jeong et al. and compare with para [0050] of the Instant Specification. Also compare Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. and Fig. 1 of the Instant Specification). Because Jeong et al.’s structure is analogous to the instantly-claimed structure, it necessarily comprises analogous first and second connecting portions such that the first connecting portion connects the first sealing zone and the second connecting portion in a thickness direction of the packaging film. Further regarding Claim 12, while Jeong et al. does not explicitly state that the second non- sealing zone comprises a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, wherein the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion, Jeong et al.’s second sealing zone is created by heat sealing a packaging film in a manner that is analogous to the thermally-sealed packaging film described in the Instant Specification (see [0020]-[0023] of Jeong et al. and compare with para [0050] of the Instant Specification. Also compare Fig. 9 of Jeong et al. and Fig. 1 of the Instant Specification). Because Jeong et al.’s structure is analogous to the instantly-claimed structure, it necessarily comprises analogous third and fourth connecting portions such that the third connecting portion connects the second sealing zone and the fourth connecting portion in a thickness direction of the packaging film. Further regarding Claim 12, Iino et al., also working in the field of laminated pouch-style batteries, teaches an electrochemical apparatus comprising a packaging film having an analogous second region and second sealing zone that together form a thickness T2 (see e.g. Iino et al.: T2, [0048], Figs. 6-7 and Illustration 3 below and compare with Fig. 7A of the Instant Specification), as well as a distance D between structures that are analogous to the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion (see e.g. Iino et al.: T1, [0048], Figs. 6-7 and Illustration 3 above). Iino et al. further teaches that the distance D is preferable 1.15 times or more the distance T2, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of T2<D<10T2 (i.e., T1 is 1.15 times or more T2, see e.g. Iino et al.: [0048]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the electrochemical apparatus of Jeong et al. such that the second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 (mm) and a distance between the second connecting portion and the fourth connecting portion is D (mm), wherein T2<D<10T2, because Iino et al. teaches that a sealing structure with these dimensions is preferable. As to Claim 14, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 12. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone, and does not teach that the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90°. However. while Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus, the Examiner submits that the first sealing zone must necessarily be thinner than the non-sealing zone because the non-sealing zone contains an open space. Because of this, the first connecting portion must necessarily form an angle that is greater than 0° with the first sealing zone. Further, the only way for the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone to be greater than 90° would be if the first sealing zone was laterally forced into the open cavity of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s packaging film, which is not disclosed in Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s specification. As such, the angle between the first connecting portion and the first sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus must necessarily lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed range of greater than 0° and less than 90°. As to Claim 15, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 14. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone, and does not teach that the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90°. However, while Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus, the Examiner submits that the third sealing zone must necessarily be thinner than the non-sealing zone because the non-sealing zone contains an open space. Because of this, the third connecting portion must necessarily form an angle that is greater than 0° with the second sealing zone. Further, the only way for the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone to be greater than 90° would be if the third sealing zone was laterally forced into the open cavity of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s packaging film, which is not disclosed in Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s specification. As such, the angle between the third connecting portion and the second sealing zone of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s electrochemical apparatus must necessarily lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed range of greater than 0° and less than 90°. As to Claim 17, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 12. Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the thickness of the first region and the second sealing zone and does not teach an electrochemical apparatus wherein the first region and the second sealing zone form a thickness T1 (mm), wherein T2<T1<4T2. However, the electrochemical apparatus of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. comprises a second region and a second sealing zone (i.e., the first and second films seal together to form first and second sealing zones that are analogous to the first and second sealing zones shown in Figs. 7-10 of the Instant Specification (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 9 and Illustration 1 above). The second region and the second sealing zone together form a thickness T2 that is analogous to the instantly-claimed T2 (i.e., the thickness of the apparatus at the second region is T2). Additionally, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s apparatus comprises a first region and a second sealing zone that have a thickness T1 that is analogous to the claimed T1 (i.e., thickness of the apparatus at the first region is T1). The difference between T1 and T2 is that the thickness T1 includes the thickness of the electrode tab (see Figs. 7A and 10 of the Instant Application). As such, T1 is necessarily larger than T2, so that T1 > T2. Further, Fig. 1 of Jeong et al. shows that the electrode tab (141/142) in the first region is roughly the same thickness as the first and second films that form thickness T2 of the second region. As such, the dimension T1 of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is less than four times the dimension T2, and Jeong et al.’s apparatus satisfies the claimed relationship of T2 < T1 ≤ 4T2 . As to Claim 18, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 12. However, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the packaging tension between the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone and does not explicitly disclose that the packaging tension between the first sealing zone and the second sealing zone is 1 N/mm-10 N/mm. However, the first and second sealing zones of Jeong et al. are made from conventional aluminum laminate sheets that are thermally fused together (Jeong et al.: [0006], [0011]). As described in the Instant Specification, the instantly-claimed first and second sealing zones are also formed from thermally fusing conventional aluminum laminate sheets (Instant Specification: [0003] and [0050]). While Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. is silent as to the packaging tension between the first and second sealing zones, a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the scope of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s first and second sealing zones reads on the structure and composition of the claimed apparatus, and lacking any compositional distinction between the claimed sealing zones and those of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the packaging tension between the first and second sealing zones of Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al.’s apparatus would also have the property of lying in the range of 1 N/mm–10 N/mm. As to Claim 19, Jeong et al. in view of Iino et al. teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a second tab, wherein the second tab is electrically connected to the electrode assembly (see e.g. lead 142, which is connected to electrode assembly 130, Jeong et al.: [0011] and Fig. 1), the second tab is located on the same side of the electrode assembly as the first tab (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 1, first tab 141 and second tab 142 are on the same side); and the first sealing zone further comprises a fourth region, wherein the fourth region covers a projection of the second tab on the first sealing zone, the second region connects to the fourth region, and the width of the second region is less than a width of the fourth region (see e.g. Jeong et al.: Fig. 1 and Illustration 4 above). Conclusion 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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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. /A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603386
BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597680
BUSBAR AND BATTERY MODULE INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597603
CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR NON-AQUEOUS-ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY AND NON-AQUEOUS-ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12567582
SILICON-BASED POWDER, ELECTRODE AND BATTERY COMPRISING SUCH A POWDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548846
POWER SYSTEMS COMPRISING BATTERY ARRAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 176 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month