DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claim 1 and 3 has been amended, claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled, claims 4 and 6-8 are as previously presented, claim 9 has been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn as a result of the Applicant’s amendments and remarks (filed 08/06/2025).
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Examiner Notes
In regards to the apparatus of claim 1, the examiner notes while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function; “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)., see MPEP 2114.
The foreign reference Yoo (KR101858680B1) filed with IDS 10/03/22 does not have paragraph citation. As such, the examiner will be uploading their own Yoo (KR101858680B1) and will reference the paragraph citations of the Yoo uploaded with this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 line 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “…to be pushed to the outside when the stopper to push the inner surface…”. There appears to be a typo in this line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
The term “guide hole” in claim 1 line 12 is broad; in light of the instant specification, paragraph [38] line 15+ and fig. 4 and 8-9.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The BRI of “guide hole” includes any bending jig (200)(s) in which an opening part such as a hole, gap, or any absence of material at the site of the bending lateral surface.
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, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR101858680B1 as noted in the IDS filed on 10/03/2022 for clarity citations are from version uploaded with this action) in view of Larsen (US2696241A) and as evidenced by Tajima (US20170033327A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses a pouch bending guide apparatus [abstract, Yoo], for a secondary battery packaging system [abstract, Yoo], which folds a pouch sheet while a bending jig (200) (200/300) is folded toward a base jig (300) (300/200) with the pouch sheet placed on the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) [0039-0041, fig. 3, Yoo].
One of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date, would appreciate that if the folding jig described by Yoo is capable of folding two stacks together then it would be capable of folding a pouch with two stacks in it
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)., see MPEP 2114
Yoo continues to disclose a bending guide apparatus wherein one side wall of the base jig (300) (300) and one side wall of the bending jig (200) (200) are connected to each other by a hinge (100) part [0039, fig. 3, Yoo], and a bending guide opening part is formed in each of the side walls of the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) such that inner and outer surfaces of each of the side walls communicate with each other [fig. 3 and 5, Yoo].
PNG
media_image2.png
380
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 3 and 5, Yoo
Yoo discloses a bending bar (500) that prevents the cells movement during folding [0068, 0117-019, fig. 4-6, Yoo] is silent to a bending knife with a stopper that supports a bending lateral surface.
However, Larsen discloses an apparatus to wrap-stretch thin sheets to form a curved edge in a U-shape manner [col 1 lines 15-30, Larsen], wherein the apparatus comprises a first and second jaw arm (equivalent to base and bending jig (200)) that holds the material to be bent and are brought together upon folding of the material [col 2 line 46-53, col 3 line 19-29, fig. 1-5, Larsen], the apparatus comprising: a bending knife (1 + 3) which supports [col 2 line 22-35, fig. 1-5, Larsen], from an inside of a pouch, a bending lateral surface of the sheet formed while the sheet is folded by the bending jig (200) [col 3 line 3-67, fig. 1-5, Larsen], wherein the bending knife is provided with a stopper (3) to support an inner surface of the bending lateral surface of the pouch [col. 2 line 22-35, fig. 1-5, Larsen].
The works of Yoo and Larsen are analogous as they both seek to develop an apparatus and/or method for efficiently folding/wrapping a material in which a lateral support is applied to the middle of the material and two holders/wings/jigs are on opposite sides that fold upwards and move towards the center to create a folded material in a U-shape.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify the bending bar of Yoo such that a bending knife with a concave stopper similar to that disclosed by Larsen [fig. 4-5, Larsen] was utilized to form a bending lateral surface across the surface of the battery pouch as the bending and base jig folded towards one another. As this is a known method for folding a material such that it possess a U-shaped channel (“bending lateral surface”).
Additionally, applying a bending knife with a concave end to a battery pouch upon folding keeps the folded secondary battery in shape such that there is a fixed minimum radius of curvature the ended foldable point making it possible to prevent the exterior body from being broken [as evidenced by Tajima, 0020]
In regards to the final limitation “wherein the bending guide opening part includes a guide hole to guide the bending lateral surface of the pouch to be pushed to the outside when the stopper to push the inner surface of the bending lateral surface”.
The examiner notes that the bending guide of Yoo has a “guide hole” [fig. 3, Yoo, see annotated figure below], and that the presence of these holes would allow for the pouch to be pushed outside when a pressure, such as that applied by a stopper, is applied to the bending lateral surface of the pouch.
PNG
media_image3.png
395
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3, Yoo depicting a guide hole meeting the BRI as noted in the Claim Interpretation seen above
Regarding claim 3, Modified Yoo discloses the apparatus, wherein the bending knife is configured to be moved toward an inside of the pouch sheet by a movement means such that the stopper prevents movement of the bending lateral surface to the inside of the pouch [fig. 1-5, Larsen].
Regarding claim 6, Modified Yoo discloses the apparatus, wherein the pouch sheet is placed on the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) [fig. 3-4, Yoo], and in a state in which a battery cell is received in a half battery cell receiving part disposed on the base jig (300) among a pair of half battery cell receiving parts of the pouch sheet [fig. 3-4, Yoo], the pouch sheet is folded while the bending jig (200) is folded toward the base jig (300) [fig. 3-6, Yoo], and after the pouch sheet is folded [fig. 3-6, Yoo], the pouch having the battery cell mounted in the half battery cell receiving part inside the pouch is formed [fig. 3-6, Yoo], wherein the bending knife is configured to move to the inside of the pouch sheet and to support the bending lateral surface of the pouch from the inside of the pouch while the pouch sheet is folded [fig. 1-5, Larsen].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US20200035982A1).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Yoo is silent to the bending knife being inclined.
Choi however, discloses the bending knife is disposed to be inclined [0099-0100, Choi discloses a bending knife moving in a diagonal direction towards a surface to be bent], and when the bending jig (200) and the pouch sheet are folded, the inclined bending knife is configured to be moved toward the inside of the pouch sheet by the movement means [fig. 1-5, Larsen and 0100-0102, Choi, both discloses an apparatus in which a guide bar is moved towards a surface to be bend. As such it also has the ability to do this after having bent folded].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Yoo such that the bending knife was configured to be inclined as it is a known angle that and method which can be used to reasonable succeed in the folding of an object [0093-0100, Choi].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung’367 (KR101903367B1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Yoo is silent to the jigs containing vacuum suction.
However, Jung’367 discloses a vacuum suction passage is formed inside each of the base jig (300) (31) and the bending jig (200) (32) [0020, Jung’367], and a plurality of vacuum suction holes communicating with the vacuum suction passage is formed in each of inner surfaces of the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) facing each other [0029, Jung’367].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Yoo such that the jigs contained vacuum suction holes as disclosed by Jung’367. Doing so would allow for jigs to firmly hold on to the film of the pouch battery so that it is firmly attached to the jig [0029, Jung’367].
Regarding claim 8, Yoo as further modified above discloses the apparatus, wherein in a state in which the pouch sheet placed on the inner surfaces of the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) is vacuum-suctioned by the vacuum suction holes of the base jig (300) and the bending jig (200) [0020,0029, Jung’367], the pouch sheet is folded in half by folding the bending jig (200) toward the inner surface of the base jig (300) [0009, 0015, Jung’367], and thus the pouch is formed and a battery cell is mounted in a battery cell receiving part inside the pouch [0009, 0015, 0019, 0030-0033 Jung’367 discloses an apparatus which fixes a pouch sheet (insulating film) to a first and second jig and folds the pouch sheet thus forming a pouch with a battery cell mounted in a battery cell receiving part inside the pouch].
Response to Arguments
The examiner has removed the double patenting rejection in light of the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220029192 A1 teaches about the folding of a pouch battery and utilizing a first guide (21) being used to prevent the formation of bat ears. The examiner notes that the first guide (21) additionally reads on a “bending knife”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights