Detailed Action
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
As it pertains to the phrase “the object to be formed” in claim 9, the Examiner understands that an object to be formed is inherent to any process utilizing a press forming apparatus and therefore does not constitute a 112(b) issue.
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. The header in section one has been corrected.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Park et al (KR 20180134133A refer to the supplied English translation already of record) hereinafter PARK in view of Micarelli (US 2009/0224427) hereinafter MIC.
As for claim 9, PARK teaches a press forming apparatus [Abstract], comprising:
a die [Fig. 1 #110; 0038] in which a molded portion is formed by being recessed inwardly from an upper surface thereof;
a stripper for fixing an object to be formed disposed on the die (the lower tip, the upper block is understood to be a part of the punch) [Fig. 1 #140; 0036];
the stripper is between the die and the punch when the mold is closed and the stripper is substantially in contact with the die and therefore between the die and the punch [Fig. 4 #140],
a punch [Fig. 1 #131] provided above the die to be movable upwardly and downwardly, and inserted into the molded portion when descending, to form an accommodating portion in the object to be formed (the Examiner understands that an accommodating portion readily accommodates anything such as an electrode assembly, in addition the substrate worked upon does not distinguish over the prior art see e.g. MPEP 2115),
wherein a surface of the molded portion, in contact with the object to be formed, has a polygonal shape (rectangular) [Fig. 1 #110],
and the punch comprises a vent [Fig. 1 #122; 0033] for blowing air onto an upper surface of the object to be formed,
and wherein the molded portion of the die further comprises an inlet for intaking air between the punch and molded portion (as there is a gap which receives air from the punch) [PARK: Fig. 3 #110-111].
PARK fails to teach that the molded portion of the die comprises a resin.
MIC teaches a press mold [Abstract] in which one sufficiently strong mold material with advantageous characteristics such as compression strength and thermal conductivity comprises a urethane (as a urethane with an aluminum filler substance) [0025].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the urethane based mold material of MIC as the mold material of the molded portion of the die of PARK in order for the molded portion to have good compression strength and thermal conductivity. As both PARK and MIC pertain to the art of press molds they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 10, PARK/MIC teaches claim 1 and the pressure of the air is a manner of operating the device which does not distinguish over the prior art [see e.g. MPEP 2114].
As for claim 12, PARK/MIC teaches claim 1 and the vent is understood to be formed by “penetrating through” a central portion of the punch inserted into the molded portion (as the vent is carved inside and onto the surface of the punch) [PARK: Fig. 1 #122].
As for claim 13, PARK/MIC teaches claim 1 and wherein the vent is comprised in a plurality (as there are multiple vents) [PARK: Fig. 1 #122].
As for claim 16, PARK/MIC teaches claim 1 and the article formed is both a material worked upon and a manner of operating the device, both of which do not distinguish over the prior art [see e.g. MPEP 2114-2115]. In addition PARK teaches producing a pouch film for a secondary battery exterior material [PARK: Abstract]
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 20180134133A already of record) hereinafter PARK in view of Hyun Il et al (US 2022/0344789 already of record) hereinafter HYUN and Micarelli (US 2009/0224427) hereinafter MIC.
As for claim 1, PARK teaches a press forming apparatus [Abstract], comprising:
a die [Fig. 1 #110; 0038] in which a molded portion is formed by being recessed inwardly from an upper surface thereof;
a stripper for fixing an object to be formed disposed on the die (the lower tip, the upper block is understood to be a part of the punch) [Fig. 1 #140; 0036];
the stripper is between the die and the punch when the mold is closed and the stripper is substantially in contact with the die and therefore between the die and the punch [Fig. 4 #140],
a punch [Fig. 1 #131] provided above the die to be movable upwardly and downwardly, and inserted into the molded portion when descending, to form an accommodating portion in the object to be formed,
and the punch comprises a vent [Fig. 1 #122; 0033] for blowing air onto an upper surface of the object to be formed
and wherein the molded portion of the die further comprises an inlet for intaking air between the punch and molded portion [PARK: Fig. 3 #110-111].
PARK fails to teach a curved surface nor that the molded portion of the die is made of a resin.
HYUN teaches an apparatus for the formation of a pouch-type secondary battery [0002; Fig. 5] in which its apparatus prevents the occurrence of cracks and whitening [0007-8]. This is accomplished by providing a molded surface portion and corresponding punch surface portion that contact the object to be formed with rounded surface edges [0047; 0075-86].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a curved surface to both the punch and molded portion surface as taught by HYUN in the apparatus of PARK in order to prevent cracks and whitening in the resultant formed object. As both PARK and HYUN pertain to the art of molding battery pouch cases, one of ordinary skill in the art would have look to HYUN for advantageous teachings for PARK and would have expected success in the combination.
PARK/HYUN fail to teach that the molded portion of the die comprises a resin.
MIC teaches a press mold [Abstract] in which one sufficiently strong mold material with advantageous characteristics such as compression strength and thermal conductivity comprises a urethane (as a urethane with an aluminum filler substance) [0025].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the urethane based mold material of MIC as the mold material of the molded portion of the die of PARK/HYUN in order for the molded portion to have good compression strength and thermal conductivity. As both PARK/HYUN and MIC pertain to the art of press molds they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, PARK/HYUN/MIC teaches claim 1 and the pressure of the air is a manner of operating the device which does not distinguish over the prior art [see e.g. MPEP 2114].
As for claim 4, PARK/HYUN/MIC teaches claim 1 and the vent is understood to be formed by “penetrating through” a central portion of the punch inserted into the molded portion (as the vent is carved inside and onto the surface of the punch) [PARK: Fig. 1 #122].
As for claim 5, PARK/HYUN/MIC teaches claim 1 and wherein the vent is comprised in a plurality (as there are multiple vents) [PARK: Fig. 1 #122].
As for claim 8, PARK/HYUN/MIC teaches claim 1 and the article formed is both a material worked upon and a manner of operating the device, both of which do not distinguish over the prior art [see e.g. MPEP 2114-2115]. In addition, PARK teaches producing a pouch film for a secondary battery exterior material [Abstract].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 20180134133A already of record) hereinafter PARK in view of Micarelli (US 2009/0224427) hereinafter MIC as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Hosoe (US 2001/0053395 already of record) hereinafter HOS.
As for claims 11, PARK/HYUN/MIC teaches claims 1 and 9 but fail to teach an air inlet vent size.
HOS teaches a molding die which includes air inlet vents [Abstract; 0076; Fig. 1 #15]. These vents have a diameter of 1.5 mm [0105] which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the vent sizing of HOS as the vent sizing of PARK/HYUN/MIC in order to allow for the supply of gas. As both PARK and HOS utilize vents within molding dies, one of ordinary art would have expected success. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 20180134133A already of record) hereinafter PARK in view of Hyun Il et al (US 2022/0344789 already of record) hereinafter HYUN and Micarelli (US 2009/0224427) hereinafter MIC as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hosoe (US 2001/0053395 already of record) hereinafter HOS.
As for claim 3, PARK/HYUN/NOB teaches claims 1 and 9 but fail to teach an air inlet vent size.
HOS teaches a molding die which includes air inlet vents [Abstract; 0076; Fig. 1 #15]. These vents have a diameter of 1.5 mm [0105] which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the vent sizing of HOS as the vent sizing of PARK in order to allow for the supply of gas. As both PARK/HYUN/MIC and HOS utilize vents within molding dies, one of ordinary art would have expected success. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been considered however they do not overcome the currently applied prior art rejections.
The Applicant argues that the stripper of PARK cannot meet the newly amended stripper limitations as PARK’s stripper is not between the press and the molded portion.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees as when the stripper is considered the lower segment and the upper block is understood to be a part of the punch, then the stripper fits within the claimed limitations irrespective of how the stripper of PARK and the stripper of the instant invention are capable of fixing articles in place.
The Applicant argues that the molded portion of lacks an air intake inlet configured to remove air between the punch and the molded portion.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees as the phrasing of the arguments suggest that the Applicant is wishing to claim a channel or piping or other similar structure that runs through the molded portion. As currently claimed an “air intake inlet” merely requires that the air is capable of being taken in through an open area which is provided by the gaps in the cavity of the molded portion.
Due to the above, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748