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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0067034A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a battery cell sealing apparatus (sealing block for pouch-shaped secondary battery, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 3-5) comprising:
a first sealing block and a second sealing block pressurizing a case, provided with an accommodation space in which an electrode assembly is accommodated, to seal the case (first sealing block 110, second sealing block 120, third sealing block 130 [0052], Fig. 3);
a moving unit connected to at least one of the first sealing block and the second sealing block and moving at least one of the first sealing block and the second sealing block (apply pressure [0053]); and
a heating unit connected to the first sealing block and the second sealing block and supplying heat energy to the first sealing block and the second sealing block (apply heat [0053]),
wherein
the first sealing block and the second sealing block include a plurality of block members and pressurize the case with the plurality of block members to form a plurality of sealing portions on the case (first and second sealing block 110,120 for sealing at least a part of an outer edge of a battery case from which an electrode terminal protrudes and an outer edge of the battery case [0053]-[0054], Fig. 3-4),
wherein the plurality of block members include:
a first block member facing the positive electrode tab or a negative electrode tab (sealing at least a part of an outer edge of a battery case from which an electrode terminal protrudes [0053]-[0054]); and
a plurality of second block members branching off from the block member and extending toward the accommodation space (wrinkle prevention unit 112,122 [0053]-[0054], Fig. 3),
wherein each of the plurality of second block members is nonlinearly inclined with respect to the first block member (curved structure 114,124 [0053]-[0054], Fig. 3),
wherein each of the plurality of second block members is inclined in directions away from each other and includes a curved surface (curved structure 114,124 [0053]-[0054], Fig. 3),
wherein each of the plurality of second block members pressurizes a region, in which the case is not in contact with a positive electrode tab or a negative electrode tab of the battery cell, to form a first oblique sealing portion and a second oblique sealing portion on the case, such that gas generated within the case is guided toward a region in which the positive electrode tab or the negative electrode tab is located (sealing by applying heat and/or pressure, wrinkle prevention unit 112 including a curved structure 114, which corresponds to a rounded corner of an electrode assembly reception unit of the battery case [0053]-[0054], gas discharge direction 250 [0059]-[0060], Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the first block member pressurizes a region, in which the case is in contact with the positive electrode tab or the negative electrode tab of the battery cell, and a region, in which the case is not in contact with a positive electrode tab or a negative electrode tab of the battery cell, to form a second sealing portion on the case (first and second sealing block 110,120 for sealing at least a part of an outer edge of a battery case from which an electrode terminal protrudes and an outer edge of the battery case [0053]-[0054], Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the first sealing block and the second sealing block simultaneously form the plurality of sealing portions on the case (first, second and third sealing blocks 110,120,130 form a sealing block assembly 100 [0052] as shown in Fig. 3 such that the first and second sealing blocks 110,120 would simultaneously form the sealing portions).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the plurality of second block members are provided to be coupled to or removed from the first block member (independent so as to be separated from the first sealing block 110 and the second sealing block 120, or fixed coupled [0056]).
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.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0067034A1), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 10 above, in view of JP2006147230A, refer to English machine translation by EPO.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Kim does not further disclose a stopper unit connected to the first sealing block and the second sealing block and limiting moving distances of the first sealing block and the second sealing block.
JP2006147230A discloses a battery sealing manufacturing method in which when a button is turned on, upper heater block is lowered and when it is lowered to a predetermined position, the lowering sensor is turned on, sealing is performed and then the upper heater block is released (Title, [0001], [0025]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Kim does not further disclose at least one of the first sealing block and the second sealing block is provided with a notch.
JP2006147230A discloses a battery sealing manufacturing method in which sealing block includes a notch 41 (Title, [0001], [0044], Fig. 11).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 and 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to JP2006147230 and Lim (see Remarks filed 6/23/2026 and 7/21/2026), said combination of references are no longer relied upon to teach or suggest the instant claims. Instead, a new reference Kim et al. (US 2020/0067034A1) is relied upon to teach at least claim 1 as set forth 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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/14/2026
Prosecution Insights