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 .
2. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17-19, 21-24 and 30 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 5, 15, 24-25, 28 and 31-33 have been cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1, 4, 6-14, 16-23, 26-27 and 29-30 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted February 16, 2023; June 17, 2024; July 29, 2024; July 29, 2024; September 13, 2024; October 31, 2024; December 6, 2024; December 20, 2024; January 30, 2025; August 11, 2025; September 29, 2025; and, December 11, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0280044 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Park et al. disclose in Figure 1, a pouch-type battery case, called a pouch sheet (120), comprising: a first case and a second case, called left and right, defining a cup part formed of a first cup part and a second cup part, called left and right accommodation grooves (121, 122), the cup part (121,122) being configured to accommodate an electrode assembly (110) (paragraphs 0021-0024), in which electrodes (113) and separators (114) are stacked (paragraphs 0028-0029), respectively; and a bridge (123) formed between the first and second cup parts (121, 122), wherein a thickness (called a width) of the bridge (123) is 4 mm or less, or 1 mm to 2 mm (paragraph 0047), which meets the claimed limitation of 2 mm or less. In the instant application, the specification, paragraph [0154], defines the width of the folding part to be proportional to the thickness of the bridge.
With regard to Claim 6, Park et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the bridge (123) has a thickness corresponding to a distance between two bridge vertical lines, called in inflection points (b1, b2), which pass through a boundary point of the bridge and a bridge-side outer wall, respectively, and are perpendicular to a bottom part (128, 129) (paragraphs 0044-0047).
With regard to Claim 7, Park et al. disclose in Figures 1-2, wherein each one of the first and second cup parts (121, 122) comprises a plurality of punch edges, called inflection surfaces (126, 127), which connect a plurality of outer walls, called outer circumferential surfaces (124, 125), configured to surround a periphery thereof to a bottom part (128, 129), respectively, and at least one of the punch edges is rounded, including curved surfaces (f1, f2) (paragraphs 0037-0039).
With regard to Claim 9, Park et al. disclose in Figures 3-4, wherein, in the plurality of punch edges (126, 127), a bridge-side punch edge (d1, d2) configured to connect a bridge-side outer wall facing the bridge (123) to the bottom part (128, 129) is rounded (paragraph 0048).
With regard to Claim 12, Park et al. disclose in Figure 2, wherein the first and second cup parts (121, 122) further comprises a plurality of die edges, called first curved surfaces (f1), configured to connect the outer wall (124, 125) to a side (126, 127) (paragraphs 0039-0041).
With regard to Claim 26, Park et al. disclose in Figure 1, a pouch-type secondary battery (100) comprising: an electrode assembly (110) in which electrodes (113) and separators (114) are stacked (paragraphs 0028-0029); a pouch-type battery case, called a pouch sheet (120), comprising a cup part, called a left and right accommodation grooves (121, 122), configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (110) therein (paragraphs 0023-0024), wherein the pouch-type battery case (120) comprises: a first case and a second case, called left and right, of which at least one comprises a cup part (121, 122); and a folding part, called a bridge (123), configured to integrally connect the first case to the second case, wherein the folding part (123) has a width of 4 mm or less, or 1 mm to 2 mm (paragraphs 0046-0047), which meets the claimed limitation of a width of 1 mm to 3.2 mm.
With regard to Claim 29, Park et al. disclose in Figures 3-4, wherein the folding part (123) comprises a groove that is recessed inward to an upper end (123a) (paragraphs 0044-0046).
With regard to Claim 30, Park et al. disclose in Figures 3-4, wherein the battery case (120) comprises a pair of protrusions, shown by portions (p1, p2), protruding outward with the groove therebetween, and a distance between the innermost portion (123a) of the groove and the outermost portion of the protrusion (p1, p2) is approximately half of the width which is 4 mm or less, or 1 mm to 2 mm (paragraphs 0044-0047), which meets the claimed limitation of 0.8 mm or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 4, 8, 13, 14, 16-18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0280044 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 26, 29 and 30 above.
With regard to Claim 4, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the bridge comprises a radius of curvature of 1 mm or less. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the bridge to comprise a radius of curvature of 1 mm or less, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 8, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the punch edge has a radius of curvature (R2) of 2 mm (paragraph 0056), but do not specifically disclose wherein the punch edge has a radius of curvature radius that is between 1/20 and 1/6 of a depth of one of the first or second cup parts. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the punch edge to have a radius of curvature radius that is between 1/20 and 1/6 of a depth of one of the first or second cup parts, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 13, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the die edges (f1) has a radius (R1) of 1.5 mm (paragraph 0056), but do not specifically disclose wherein the die edges have a radius of curvature between 1/20 and 1/6 of a depth of the cup part. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the die edges to have a radius of curvature between 1/20 and 1/6 of a depth of the cup part, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 14, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the die edges (f1) has a radius (R1) of 1.5 mm (paragraph 0056), but do not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the die edges has a radius of curvature of 1 mm or less. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the die edges to have a radius of curvature of 1 mm or less, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 16, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a vertical distance between a die edge vertical line, which passes a boundary point of the die edge and the die edge-side outer wall and is perpendicular to the bottom part, and an edge vertical line, which passes a boundary point of the die edge-side punch edge and the die edge-side outer wall and is perpendicular to the bottom part, is 0.5 mm or less. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture a vertical distance between a die edge vertical line, which passes a boundary point of the die edge and the die edge-side outer wall and is perpendicular to the bottom part, and an edge vertical line, which passes a boundary point of the die edge-side punch edge and the die edge-side outer wall and is perpendicular to the bottom part, to be 0.5 mm or less, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 17, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the cup part has a depth of at least 6.5 mm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the cup part to have a depth of at least 6.5 mm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 18, Park et al. disclose wherein an outer wall of the cup part (121, 122) is inclined, having an inclination surface (126’), at an inclination angle of 95° from the bottom part (128, 129) of the cup part (paragraph 0056), which meets the claimed limitation of between 90° and 95°.
With regard to Claim 27, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type secondary battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the electrode assembly has an area of 15,000 mm2 to 100,000 mm2. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the electrode assembly to have an area of 15,000 mm2 to 100,000 mm2, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
12. Claims 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0280044 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 26, 29 and 30 above, and in further view of Chu et al. (US 2014/0099535 A1).
With regard to Claim 19, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the pouch film is molded to be manufactured, and the pouch film comprises: a sealant layer made of a first polymer are-formed at the innermost layer; a surface protection layer made of a second polymer and-formed at the outermost layer; and a moisture barrier layer stacked between the surface protection layer and the sealant layer, wherein the moisture barrier layer is formed as an aluminum alloy thin film having a thickness of between 50 µm and 80 µm and a grain size of between 10 µm and 13 µm, and the sealant layer has a thickness of between 60 µm and 100 µm.
Chu discloses in Figure 3, a battery cell (10) including a stack (12), a pouch (14)
having a cavity (15) which holds the stack (12) and electrolyte (20) in the cavity (15) (paragraph 0024). Chu discloses wherein the pouch film comprises: a sealant layer,
called a sealing layer (36), made of a first polymer and formed at an innermost layer of
the pouch film; a surface protection layer, called a mechanical protection layer (40),
made of a second polymer and formed at an outermost layer of the pouch film; and a
moisture barrier layer, called a main barrier layer (34), stacked between the surface
protection layer (40) and the sealant layer (36), wherein the moisture barrier layer (34)
is formed as an aluminum alloy film having a thickness of about 40 µm (paragraphs
0032-0039), and the sealant layer (36) has a thickness of about 80 microns (paragraph
0044), which meets the claimed limitation of ranging from 60 µm and 100 µm. Chu does
not specifically disclose wherein the aluminum alloy film has a thickness ranging from
50 µm to 80 µm, and a grain size ranging from 10 µm to 13 µm. Before the effective
filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
manufacture the aluminum alloy film to have a thickness ranging from 50 µm to 80 µm,
and a grain size ranging from 10 µm to 13 µm, since such a modification would only
involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Also, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery of Park et al. to include
the above specified configuration of a pouch, because Chu teaches that this
configuration permits use of the battery with a reduced risk of degradation from
permeation of oxygen and moisture therein (paragraph 0024).
The recitation, “wherein the pouch film is molded to be manufactured”, is considered a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not
limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
“Even 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. 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.” In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to Claim 22, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in
paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the moisture barrier layer
has a thickness ranging from 55 µm to 65 µm, and the sealant layer has a thickness
ranging from 75 µm to 85 µm.
Chu discloses in Figure 3, a battery cell (10) including a stack (12), a pouch (14)
having a cavity (15) which holds the stack (12) and electrolyte (20) in the cavity (15)
(paragraph 0024). Chu discloses wherein the pouch film comprises: a sealant layer,
called a sealing layer (36), made of a first polymer and formed at an innermost layer of
the pouch film; a surface protection layer, called a mechanical protection layer (40), made of a second polymer and formed at an outermost layer of the pouch film; and a
moisture barrier layer, called a main barrier layer (34), positioned between the surface
protection layer (40) and the sealant layer (36), wherein the moisture barrier layer (34)
is formed as an aluminum alloy film having a thickness of about 40 µm (paragraphs
0032-0039), and the sealant layer (36) has a thickness of about 80 microns (paragraph
0044), which meets the claimed limitation of ranging from 75 µm to 85 µm. Chu does
not specifically disclose wherein the aluminum alloy film has a thickness ranging from
55 µm to 65 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an
obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the aluminum alloy film to have a
thickness ranging from 55 µm to 65 µm, since such a modification would only involve a
mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as
being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 23, Park et al. disclose the pouch-type battery case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose an elongation assistance
layer made of a third polymer and stacked between the surface protection layer and
the moisture barrier layer, wherein the elongation assistance layer has a thickness
ranging from 20 µm to 50 µm.
Chu discloses in Figure 3, a battery cell (10) including a stack (12), a pouch (14)
having a cavity (15) which holds the stack (12) and electrolyte (20) in the cavity (15)
(paragraph 0024). Chu discloses wherein the pouch film comprises: a sealant layer,
called a sealing layer (36), made of a first polymer and formed at an innermost layer of
the pouch film; a surface protection layer, called a mechanical protection layer (40),
made of a second polymer and formed at an outermost layer of the pouch film; and a moisture barrier layer, called a main barrier layer (34), positioned between the surface
protection layer (40) and the sealant layer (36) (paragraphs 0032-0039). Chu also
discloses an elongation assistance layer, called a secondary barrier layer (38), made of
a third polymer and positioned between the surface protection layer (40) and the
moisture barrier layer (36), wherein the elongation assistance layer has a thickness of
about 20 microns (paragraph 0035), which meets the claimed limitation of ranging from
20 µm to 50 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery of Park et al. to
include an elongation assistance layer made of a third polymer and positioned between
the surface protection layer and the moisture barrier layer, wherein the elongation
assistance layer has a thickness ranging from 20 µm to 50 µm, because Chu teaches
that this layer provides additional resistance to the passage of oxygen and moisture
therethrough from outside the battery cell (paragraph 0035).
13. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0280044 A1) in view of Chu et al. (US 2014/0099535 A1), as applied to Claims 19, 22 and 23 above, and in further view of Jin et al. (US 2002/0153068 A1).
With regard to Claims 20-21, Park et al. and Chu et al. disclose the pouch-type
secondary battery in paragraph 12 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the
aluminum alloy film comprises an AA8021 aluminum alloy; and, wherein the aluminum
alloy film contains between 1.3 wt% and 1.7 wt% of iron and 0.2 wt% or less of silicon.
Jin et al. disclose a quality aluminum foil containing 1.2 to 1.7 wt% Fe and 0.35 to
0.8 wt% Si, with the balance aluminum and incidental impurities (paragraph 0012), and aluminum alloy such as AA8021 having a nominal composition of less than 0.2 wt%
silicon and 1.2 to 1.7 wt% iron (paragraph 0004). Before the effective filing date of the
invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
battery of Park et al. and Chu to include an AA8021 aluminum alloy as the aluminum
alloy film; and, wherein the aluminum alloy film contains 1.3 wt% to 1.7 wt% of iron and
0.2 wt% or less of silicon, because Jin et al. teach that this type of aluminum alloy film is
widely used in the production of foil (paragraph 0004), and has a low work hardening
rate and hence good rollability, and high strength in the final foil product (paragraph
0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Park et al. (US 2020/0280044 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest the pouch-type battery case wherein the first and second cup parts further comprises a thickness edge configured to connect two outer walls adjacent to each other, and wherein the thickness edge is connected to the two punch edges adjacent to each other to form corners; and, wherein at least one of the corners is rounded, and the at least rounded corner has a radius of curvature equal to or greater than a radius of curvature of at least one of the punch edge or the thickness edge.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725