DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
2. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the correction made.
3. Claims 1 and 21 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 should correct, “the bottom part” to “the respective bottom part” for clarity given there are two bottom parts.
Claim 21: the comma added after “formed” is improper punctuation and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 6, 8-14, 17, 19-27; claim 13, claim 17, claim 19, and claim 21, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
The prior Office Action rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
5. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 6, 8-14, 17, 19-27; claim 17; and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A) Claim 1 defines each of a pair of cup parts comprises the features defined including:
“each of the plurality of punch edges located between adjacent outer walls of the plurality of outer walls and the bottom part…”
The punch edges were previously annotated with labels in prior Office Actions for clarity of the record; one of which is labeled in Fig. 7 (see reference numeral 361). The claim continues on to define:
“wherein a bridge is formed between the first cup part and the second cup part, a bridge-side outer wall of the plurality of outer walls being connected to the bridge, a bridge-side punch edge of the plurality of punch edges configured to connect the bridge-side outer wall to the bottom part of the first cup part or the second cup part…”
The claim as amended goes on to recite:
“…wherein each bridge-side punch edge is rounded with a curvature radius that corresponds to 1/20 to 1/6 of a depth of the cup part in which the bridge-side punch edge is formed,
wherein the bridge-side punch edge is rounded to define a curvature radius of 1 mm or less.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the feature of “each bridge-side punch edge” as only one is defined in the preceding section. While the use of “a” may be used to define one or more items, the issue is what is required to meet the claim with respect to the prior art is not clear. If there are multiple bridge-side punch edges within the prior art, can only one be relied upon to be “a bridge-side punch edge” and the subsequent “each bridge-side punch edge” features, or if there are multiple bridge-side punch edges present in the prior art, is each of them required to meet the subsequent requirements of the claim?
The claim is further indefinite because the subsequent amendments and remainder of the claim refer back to the bridge-side punch edge in the singular format. It is thus entirely unclear as to whether Applicant intends there to be multiple bridge-side punch edges that connect the bridge-side outer wall to the bottom part (there are only two1 disclosed for each respective cup part); and if there are multiple bridge-side punch edges, it is not clear if only one has to have the recited requirements or each one has the recited subsequent requirements.
B) Claim 17 was amended below and is non-sensical. It is not clear how a die edge is formed in “each of the cup part”:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A given die edge will only exist in one cup part. The meaning of the above is entirely not clear.
C) Claim 20 as amended recites, “wherein each of the first cup part or the second cup part has a depth of 6.5 or more…” The use of each with an “or” statement is improper. The Examiner recommends: “wherein each of the first cup part and the second cup part has a respective depth of 6.5 mm or more…”
Appropriate correction is required. With respect to claim 1, it is not clear what is required to meet the claim (i.e., how many bridge-side punch edge(s) are required to exist, and whether the requirements subsequently claimed are applicable to only one of the possible multiple bridge-side punch edges(s) or just one of them). For compact prosecution purposes, “each bridge-side punch edge” will be examined as if it recited “the bridge-side punch edge,” wherein without such an assumption, the prior art cannot be appropriately evaluated. Claim 17 will be examined as if it defined the defined in only one cup part.
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 was amended to recite the features below:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The language is not found in the written description, and Applicant makes no comment as to how the feature is supported, wherein per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), this is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
As previously pointed out, claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Rejection A: The rejection of claims 1, 8-9, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2018-0055427) (machine translation previously provided) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a pouch battery case 110 comprising a pair of receiving parts (“cup parts”) (111, 112 in Figs. 4-5; 311, 312 in Fig. 6) (see Figs. 3-9; entire disclosure relied upon as a whole) configured to accommodate an electrode assembly of stacked electrodes and separators (abstract; P1, 44-60, 84), each of the pair of cup parts (111, 112 or 311, 312) comprising (Figs. 3-9):
a plurality of punch edges;
a plurality of outer walls forming a periphery around a bottom part of the corresponding cup part;
each of the plurality of punch edges located between adjacent outer walls of the plurality of outer walls and the bottom part,
wherein the pouch battery case includes a first case 110a and a second case 110b, a first cup part 111 of the pair of cup parts (111, 112) being formed in the first case 110a, and a second cup part 112 of the pair of cup parts (111, 112) being formed in the second case (see corresponding structure in Fig. 6 but lacking reference numerals),
wherein a bent portion 113 (“a bridge”) (P25-26, 86-88, best shown in Figs. 4, 8, and 9) is formed between the first cup part 111 and the second cup part 112, a bridge-side outer wall of the plurality of outer walls being connected to the bridge, a bridge-side punch edge of the plurality of punch edges configured to connect the bridge-side outer wall of the bottom part of the first cup part or the second cup part,
wherein the bridge-side punch edge is rounded with a curvature radius that corresponds to 1/20 to 1/6 of a depth of the first cup part or the second cup part in which the bridge-side punch is formed as subsequently explained. Fig. 3 is a first embodiment, and Fig. 6 is a second embodiment in which inner edge portions of the electrode receiving portions 311 and 312 are rounded with the remaining structure the same except for this feature (P95) to achieve the feature of dispersing the pressure at the corner/inner edge portions (i.e., at the punch edges) so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by the pressure of the punch (P36). This damaging pressure would be applicable to all corner/inner portions (“punch edges”), and as illustrated all of the inner edge portions, including the “bridge-side punch edge” (i.e., what would be one of the options squared/circled on the right side of the figures below) have this feature applied:
PNG
media_image2.png
308
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
291
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In other words, what is true of the annotated R1 feature in Fig. 6 on the top-left punch edge is shown on the top-right punch edge (i.e., one of the options for the claimed “bridge-side punch edge”); alternatively, it would be entirely obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this feature to all punch edges to achieve the predictable, taught result of avoiding damaging pressure from the punch to all edges (P36). Kim teaches the depth (D1) of the receiving part 111 (“cup part”) is 7-9 mm (P30), and a round shape of the punch edge has a diameter ranging from 3-4 mm (P35-36) such that the curvature radius is intrinsically 1.5-2 mm given the radius is ½ of the diameter (compare Fig. 8 of the instant application illustrating curvature radius R2 and that of Fig. 6 of Kim). Accordingly, the bridge-side punch edge of the first cup part 111 has a curvature radius that corresponds to 0.167-0.25 of a depth D1 of the receiving part 111 (“cup part”) (claimed range is 1/20-1/6 = -0.05-0.167), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness given in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
As to the feature that the bridge-side punch edge is rounded to define a curvature radius of 1 mm or less, Kim teaches the range of that the round shape of the punch edge has a diameter ranging from 3-4 mm (P35-36) such that the curvature radius is intrinsically 1.5-2 mm given the radius is ½ of the diameter (compare Fig. 8 of the instant application illustrating curvature radius R2 and that of Fig. 6 of Kim). Kim goes on to teach that the round shape is “preferably formed to have a diameter of 3 mm or less (curvature radius would be 1.5 mm or less) so as to disperse the pressure at the corner portion so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by the pressure of the punch” (P36). Accordingly, Kim teaches a range that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range of “wherein the at least one punch edge of the first cup part and the at least one punch edge of the second cup part are rounded to define a curvature radius of 1 mm or less” in view of the overlapping taught range of 1.5 mm or less (P36).
The curvature radius is thus established as a known-result effective variable in terms of its effect on pressure dispersion and damage (P36), wherein there is thus clear teaching, suggestion, and motivation to determine the optimum or workable ranges for this variable, and to explore ranges below the bottom of the diameter range of 3 mm (=1.5 mm radius) in the context of either of the taught range of 3-4 mm diameter (=1.5-2 mm diameter) (P35), or less than 3 mm 9 (=1.5 mm diameter) (P36). Pertinent case law with emphasis added is cited below similar to the instant application fact pattern:
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant’s claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender’s ‘suitable’ range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore ‘not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness’ made out by Zehender."). See MPEP § 2145, subsection X.D., for a discussion of "teaching away" references.
Although the above case law is explained in the context of teaching away (taken from MPEP 2144.05), it is pertinent to the instant scenario where there is a taught range of a diameter of 3-4 mm (=1.5-2 mm radius), with Kim providing the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable values thereof so as to disperse the pressure at the corner portion so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by the pressure of the punch (P36). Thus, similar to the fact pattern found within In re Geisler, the teaching of a diameter of 3-4 mm (=1.5-2 mm radius) along with the desirable attribute this feature achieves (i.e., dispersion of pressure at the corner so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by pressure of the punch) provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on curvature values at the bottom of Kim’s suitable range and to explore values below that range.
Thus, using 0.5 mm as an example within the range of “1.5 mm or less” or an exploration of the lower bound of the taught range of 3-4 mm diameter (=1.5-2 mm radius), the calculations for the corresponding curvature radius relative to the depth (D1) provide another overlapping range with that claimed:
0.5 mm curvature radius (CR) relative to depth (D1) of the receiving part 111 (“first cup part”) is 7-9 mm (P30), accordingly, there is teaching, suggestion, and motivation to arrive at at least one punch edge of the first cup part 111 has a curvature radius that corresponds to 0.05-0.07 (for CR = 0.5 mm) of a depth D1 of the receiving part 111 (“first cup part”) (claimed range is 1/20-1/6 = 0.05-0.167); and
It is noted that there is no objective evidence in the instant application for new or unexpected results (there is no data provided at all), wherein the determination of the workable or optimum curvature radius and the depth of the cup parts is considered routine experimentation, with the prior art to Kim providing the necessary teaching, suggestion and motivation to determine the respective optimum or workable ranges thereof (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.): the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches where the bent part 113 (“bridge”) is rounded (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches by way of illustration wherein the first cup part 111 or the second cup part 112 further comprises a thickness edge (i.e., the edge between two outer walls) configured to connect two outer walls of the plurality of outer walls adjacent to each other, the thickness edge being connected to two punch edges of the plurality of punch edges adjacent to each other to form a corner, wherein the thickness edge is rounded (Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the first or second cup part further comprises a plurality of die edges (Figs. 3-9) configured to connect an outer wall of the plurality of outer walls to a side of the respective cup part or a degassing part. It is noted that each of the sides are considered a “degassing part” as each side is an entity that allows gas to escape from the pouch.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the first cup part has a depth of 6.5 mm or more (see the rejection of claim 1 in which the depth of the first cup part is taught as 7-9 mm, a range overlapping with that claimed).
Kim further teaches the depth of the second electrode assembly accommodating portion (“second cup part”) may be 3-5 mm (P31). The range of the second cup part does not overlap with the taught range of 6.5 mm or more; however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05.
It is noted that there is no objective evidence within the record of new or unexpected results with respect to each of the first and second cup parts having a respective depth of 6.5 mm or more, wherein the courts have held:
The Courts have held the following:
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05.
Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions. In re Hoeschele,406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
A change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent.” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874).
“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results fully commensurate in scope with the claimed construct for which objective evidence exists, it is considered routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the depth(s) of the first and second cup parts.
8. Rejection B: Claims 1, 8-9, 14, and 20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2018-0055427) (machine translation previously provided) in view of Chen et al. (CN 209520237) (machine translation provided; cited in the IDS filed 10/22/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 8-9, 14, and 20, each of the above rejections are incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here.
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches the punch edge rounded with a curvature radius relative to the depth of the cup part in an overlapping range, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Chen is further cited to demonstrate that the feature of optimizing the rounded curvature radius relative to the depth is a known result effective variable as this allows the appearance of the battery shell to be improved by avoiding wrinkles, the risk of product liquid leakage can be avoided, and improved efficiency and profitability (abstract; page 2).
Therefore, the curvature radius of the punch edge(s) including the bridge-side punch edge, relative to the depth of the cup part in which the punch edge is formed is consider a known-result effective variable, with Chen providing additional teaching, suggestion, and motivation to optimize this parameter within the construct of Kim in order to achieve improved appearance, avoidance of product leakage, and improved efficiency and profitability (abstract; page 2).
Chen further explicitly teaches the curvature radius is within the range claimed and teaches a ranges of 0.6-1.2 mm and specific examples of 1 mm (pages 3-4). Accordingly, Chen provides additional teaching, suggestion, and motivation to provide the punch edge(s) of Kim with curvature radii having a range overlapping with that claimed, including a specific example that anticipate the range claimed.
8. Claims 6, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A; or
Rejection B,
as applied to at least claims 1, 14, and 20 above, and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/172524) (using US 2020/0280044 as a copy and English language translation).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a virtual bridge vertical line passes a boundary point of the bridge and a bridge-side outer wall, and the virtual bridge vertical line is perpendicular to the bottom part of the first cup part or the second cup part,
and a virtual edge vertical line passes a boundary point of a bridge-side punch edge and the bridge-side outer wall, and the virtual edge vertical line is perpendicular to the bottom part of the first cup part or the second cup part (intrinsically present- Figs. 8-9).
Kim fails to teach that a distance between the virtual bridge vertical line and the virtual edge vertical line is 0.5 mm or less as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches analogous art of a pouch second battery film including a bridge 123 and the same construct as Kim (Figs. 1-4; entire disclosure relied upon), as well portion 126 with clearance C and virtual vertical lines formed between 126a-126b, wherein Park teaches it is a known technique to optimize all of the distances (d1 or d2) between points b1-p1 and b2-p2, respectively, of bridge 123a (corresponding to the virtual vertical lines claimed), as well as the distance between 126a-126b (=126 or “inflection surface”) in order to provide a structure optimized to accommodate the electrode assembly and prevent wrinkles (P11; entire disclosure relied upon). The clearance (“vertical distance”) is taught as being equal to or less than 0.5 mm such that space efficiency is optimized (P39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the vertical distance of Kim to be 0.5 mm or less given Park teaches an analogous construct in which the inflection surfaces are optimized to have this distanced in order that space efficiency is optimized (P39).
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to disclose that the die edge has a curvature radius that corresponds to 1/20 to 1/6 of a depth of the first or second cup part; however, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches analogous art of battery pouch case for a secondary battery and the optimization of R2 (corresponding to a curvature radius of at least one punch edge as taught by Kim) relative to R1 (a curvature radius of a die edge) (Fig. 6; P56). Park teaches that when the radius R2 is 2 mm (the upper limit of the range as taught by Kim of 1.5- 2mm), that R1 is 1.5 mm in order to achieve the desired inflection surface 126' which in turn allows for the advantages of preventing wrinkles and cracks within the case (P8, 11, 26) and optimizing space efficiency (P39). Fig. 6 of Park is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
325
393
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the die edge with a curvature radius of 1.5 mm which corresponds to a range overlapping with the claimed range for the die edge curvature relative to the depth of the cup part [i.e., depth = 7-9 mm in first interpretation for depth = D1 such that the range is 0.167-0.214; or for second interpretation in which depth is
(D1 + D2 = 10-15 mm), this corresponds to 0.15-0.1] given Park teaches the optimization of R1 relative to R2, and that when the radius R2 is 2 mm (the upper limit of the range as taught by Kim of 1.5- 2mm), that R1 is 1.5 mm in order to achieve the desired inflection surface 126' which in turn allows for the advantages of preventing wrinkles and cracks within the case (P8, 11, 26) and optimizing space efficiency (P39).
Regarding claim 19, Kim fails to disclose wherein a distance between:
1) a die edge virtual vertical line passing through a boundary point of the die edge and a degassing-side outer wall of the plurality of outer walls perpendicular to the bottom part of the first or second cup part, and
2) an edge virtual vertical line passing through a boundary point of a degassing part-side punch edge and the degassing part-side outer wall perpendicular to the bottom part of the first or second cup part is 0.5 mm or less as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches analogous art of a pouch second battery film including a portion 126 with clearance C and virtual vertical lines formed between 126a-126b, wherein Park teaches it is a known technique to optimize the distance (claimed distance) in order to provide a structure optimized to accommodate the electrode assembly and prevent wrinkles (P11; entire disclosure relied upon). The clearance (“distance”) is taught as being equal to or less than 0.5 mm such that space efficiency is optimized (P39). The outer wall relied upon is any outer wall not adjacent to the bridge within each of Kim and Park, wherein the “sides” these are connected to (best shown in Fig. 4 of Kim) are considered “degassing parts” as they are the entity from which gas escapes from.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the vertical distance of Kim to be 0.5 mm or less given Park teaches an analogous construct in which the inflection surfaces are optimized to have this distanced in order that space efficiency is optimized (P39).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches wherein an outer wall of the plurality of outer walls is inclined from the bottom part of the cup part in which the outer wall is formed, but fails to disclose the specific angle (claim recites at an inclination angle of 90° to 95° from the bottom part of the respective first or second cup part). In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches analogous art of a pouch second battery film including a bridge 123 and the same construct as Kim (Figs. 1-4; entire disclosure relied upon), and teaches that the inclination angle of an analogous outer wall is between 90-100 °or 93-98° relative to the bottom part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide an outer wall of the plurality of outer walls of the first or second cup part to be inclined at a prescribed obtuse angle in the range of 90-100 °or 93-98° relative to the bottom part of the respective first or second cup part given the technique and construct are taught by Park (P41), thereby providing the taught advantageous result of optimizing space efficiency (P39-42; entire disclosure).
9. Claim 19 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A; or
Rejection B,
as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/172524) (using US 2020/0280044 as a copy and English language translation) and Akutsu et al. (US 2015/0171461).
Regarding claim 19, Kim fails to disclose wherein a vertical distance between:
1) a die edge virtual vertical line passing through a boundary point of the die edge and a degassing-side outer wall of the plurality of outer walls perpendicular to the bottom part of the first or second cup part, and
2) an edge virtual vertical line passing through a boundary point of a degassing part-side punch edge and the degassing part-side outer wall perpendicular to the bottom part
Of the first or second cup part is 0.5 mm or less as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches analogous art of a pouch second battery film including a portion 126 with clearance C and virtual vertical lines formed between 126a-126b, wherein Park teaches it is a known technique to optimize the distance (claimed distance) in order to provide a structure optimized to accommodate the electrode assembly and prevent wrinkles (P11; entire disclosure relied upon). The clearance (“distance”) is taught as being equal to or less than 0.5 mm such that space efficiency is optimized (P39). The outer wall relied upon is any outer wall not adjacent to the bridge within each of Kim and Park, wherein the “sides” these are connected to (best shown in Fig. 4 of Kim) are considered “degassing parts” as they are the entity from which gas escapes from.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the vertical distance of Kim to be 0.5 mm or less given Park teaches an analogous construct in which the inflection surfaces are optimized to have this distanced in order that space efficiency is optimized (P39).
Alternatively, it is noted that it is a well-known technique to provide a degassing hole on a side of a pouch body case for a secondary battery in an area where sealing occurs as taught by Akutsu (abstract; entire disclosure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the degassing hole of Akutsu to one of the outer sides of the pouch of Kim where sealing occurs in order to allow degassing that prevents electrolyte leakage (P5), thereby achieving “a degassing-side outer wall” and “a degassing part-side punch edge” in the context of a degassing hole being present. The rejection is made for compact prosecution purpose in the instance that the “degassing part” is required to be a degassing hole as taught in the instant specification.
10. Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A; or
Rejection B,
as applied to at least claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0344789) (“Kim2”). It is noted that claim 9 is also alternatively rejected under this heading in view of the amendments filed.
Regarding claim 9, it is the position of the Examiner that Kim '427 adequately illustrates the feature claimed that the thickness edge is rounded (see Figs. 3-6); however, in the instance it can be demonstrated that the figures do not show the features claimed, Kim2 teaches the it a known technique to provide the thickness edge as rounded (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply this known technique from Kim2 to Kim of a rounded thickness edge in order to achieve the advantages taught by Kim2 including avoiding stress being concentrated at the edges and corners such that cracks do not occur (P7).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the corner is rounded (Figs. 3-6), but fails to disclose the corner having a curvature radius equal to or greater than a curvature radius of at least one of the two punch edges or thickness edge forming the corner.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim2 teaches analogous art of a pouch secondary battery and that it is a known technique to provide a cup part with a thickness edge configured to connect two outer walls adjacent to each other, the thickness edge being connected to two punch edges adjacent to each other to form corners, wherein at least one of the corners is rounded, the corner having a curvature radius equal to or greater than a curvature radius of at least one of the punch edge or the thickness edge (Fig. 3; claims 1-2; entire disclosure relied upon):
PNG
media_image5.png
284
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been entirely obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the above features as taught by Kim2 into the pouch of Kim in order to achieve the advantages taught by Kim2 including avoiding stress being concentrated at the edges and corners such that cracks do not occur (P7).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified by Kim2 teaches wherein the corner has a variable curvature radius (claim 3 of Kim2).
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Kim2 teaches wherein a curvature radius of a central portion of the corner is greater than that of a peripheral portion of the corner (claim 4 of Kim2).
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified by Kim2 teaches wherein the corner is formed within a predetermined range in a longitudinal direction of the cup part in which the corner is formed from the thickness edge forming the corner, within a predetermined range in a width direction of the same cup part from the thickness edge forming the cup part, and within a predetermined range in a thickness direction of the same cup part from the punch edge connected to this thickness edge forming the corner (claim 8 of Kim2; P64). Kim2 does not explicitly teach what the predetermined ranges are; however, Kim2 teaches that a predetermined range is determined for each in order to that stress concentrated in the corner may be dispersed to prevent whitening and cracking (P64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine workable or optimum ranges for each of the taught predetermined ranges of Kim2 given, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
11. Claim 21 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A; or
Rejection B,
as applied to at least claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Higuchi et al. (US 2004/0166406).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches wherein an outer wall of the plurality of outer walls of the first or second cup part is inclined from the bottom part of the respective first or second cup part, but fails to disclose the specific angle (claim recites at an inclination angle of 90° to 95°). In the same field of endeavor, Higuchi teaches analogous art of a pouch battery and that the circumferential side 31c can be formed at a right angle (95°) relative to the bottom surface 31d of depression 31, or it may be inclined at a prescribed obtuse angle (90 to 130°) relative to the bottom surface, wherein this allows a gap C to be produced which can be used to hold additional electrolyte therein (P75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide an outer wall of the plurality of outer walls of the first or second cup part to be inclined at a prescribed obtuse angle in the range of 90-130° relative to the bottom surface of the respective first or second cup part given the technique and construct are taught by Higuchi (P75), thereby providing the taught advantageous result of providing a gap that can be used to hold additional electrolyte therein (P75).
12. Claims 22-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A; or
Rejection B,
as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 2017/0271714) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2019/0173061).
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches the pouch-type battery case of claim 1, including a molded pouch film (P38-43), the pouch film comprising:
a sealant layer made of a first polymer formed at an innermost layer (P39-43);
a surface protection layer made of a second polymer formed at an outermost layer (P39-43); and
a moisture barrier layer stacked between the surface protection layer and the sealant layer, wherein the moisture barrier layer is an aluminum thin film (P39-43).
Kim fails to specifically teach the moisture barrier layer is an aluminum alloy thin film having a thickness 50 µm to 80 µm and a grain size of 10 µm to 13 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Iwasaki teaches analogous art of pouch batteries and a container member that is 0.2 mm (=200 µm) or less in wall thickness, wherein the container can be an aluminum alloy (P106-110) and utilized in the construct of a laminate film. Iwasaki teaches an aluminum alloy including elements such as silicon is desirable; however, elements such as iron, copper, and nickel are set to 1% or less in terms of long-term reliability and heat dissipation (P108). The aluminum alloy preferably has a crystal grain size of 50 µm or less, and more desirably 30 µm or less in order that the strength of the alloy is remarkably increased so that the wall thickness can be made thinner (P109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the moisture barrier layer of Kim as an aluminum alloy film with a thickness less than 200 µm and a grain size of 50 µm or less given Iwasaki teaches these are suitable and beneficial parameters of a battery pouch laminate film material as detailed above (P106-110).
Kim also fails to teach the thickness of the sealant layer as claimed (claimed range: 60 µm to 100 µm). In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches analogous art of battery packaging materials including multi-layer laminate 10 with a metal layer 14 (“moisture barrier layer”), a sealant layer 17 made of a first polymer formed at an innermost layer (“The Figure”; P23; 101-108); and a surface protection layer 12 made of a second polymer formed at an outermost layer (P23). Kim teaches a suitable thickness for the sealant layer as claimed is 10-100 µm (P108) in terms of heat sealing strength and water vapor penetration reduction (P108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sealant layer of Kim with the thickness taught by Yamazaki for the analogous sealant layer in order to achieve desirable results in terms of heat sealing strength and water vapor penetration reduction (P108).
Regarding claim 23, Kim as modified by Iwasaki teaches the use of aluminum alloy but does not specifically teach that the aluminum alloy thin film comprises an AA8021 aluminum alloy. Yamazaki as relied upon teaches analogous metal layer 14 and that the metal layer may be an aluminum foil made of 8021 (P77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select this specific aluminum alloy given Yamazaki teaches its selection for the same construct. See MPEP § 2144.07:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claim 25, Kim as modified by Iwasaki teaches a suitable thickness of the aluminum alloy film (“moisture barrier layer”) is less than 200 µm (see also Yamazaki teaching the same metal foil moisture barrier layer and that the thickness is preferably 9-200 µm, more preferably 15-150 µm, and event more preferably 15-100 µm – P80), and Kim as modified by Yamazaki teaches wherein the sealant layer has a thickness of 10-100 µm (P108) in terms of heat sealing strength and water vapor penetration reduction (P108).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Kim fails to disclose teaches the pouch-type battery case further comprising an elongation assistance layer made of a third polymer and stacked between the surface protection layer and the moisture barrier layer (claim 26), wherein the elongation assistance layer has a thickness of 20 µm to 50 µm (claim 27).
Yamazaki teaches it is a known technique to provide a biaxially stretched film 11 for better deep drawing formability (i.e., “an elongation assistance layer”) made of a third polymer (P27) that is between the analogous surface protection layer 12 and the moisture barrier layer 14. The thickness of the layer is 6-40 µm, and more preferably 10-30 µm (P29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the packaging laminate of Kim with the biaxially stretched film 11 for better deep drawing formability (i.e., “an elongation assistance layer”) made of a third polymer (P27) between the surface protection layer and the moisture barrier layer and having a thickness in the range of 6-40 µm, and more preferably 10-30 µm, given the construct and technique is known as taught by Yamazaki, thereby providing the advantageous results described for said layer including better deep drawing formability (P245-29).
13. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 2017/0271714) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2019/0173061) as applied to at least claims 1 and 22 above; or
Rejection B in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 2017/0271714) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2019/0173061) as applied to at least claims 1 and 22 above,
and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2015/0147635).
Regarding claim 24, Kim as modified by Iwasaki teaches wherein the aluminum alloy thin film preferably contains silicon, and Kim as modified by Yamazaki teaches the aluminum alloy film may have an iron content in the range of 0.1-9.0% mass content, wherein 0.1% mass iron leads to a packaging material with better pinhole resistance, ductility, and malleability, wherein 9.0 mass% or less leads to a packaging material having better flexibility (P77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the aluminum alloy film with silicon as taught by Kim, and also with iron in the amount of 0.1-9.0 mass% as taught by Yamazaki in order to achieve the described benefits of each.
Kim is silent as to the specific amount of silicon within the aluminum alloy film that is preferable (claimed range is 0.05 wt% to 0.2 wt% silicon). ). In the same field of endeavor, Ahn teaches analogous art of laminate, pouch materials for a secondary battery that may comprise an aluminum alloy that contains 1-3 wt% iron and silicon in an amount less than 0.15 wt% (P11, 26; claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the aluminum alloy film with silicon as taught by Kim and to select the range of less than 0.15 wt% as taught by Ahn given this is a suitable range for the element within an analogous layer.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the maintained prior art rejection. Applicant’s arguments are addressed below with all Examiner response sections respectfully submitted.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
670
704
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response: The alleged correct translation provided in the remarks section filed 10/22/2025 is not provided in conjunction with a certified English-language translation, and Applicant does not clarify whether this is a human-translation or another machine translation. If the alleged “correct translation” is a machine translation, it does not negate or overrule the original machine translation (they would be considered to have equal weight in terms of weighing one against the another). A certified English-language translation of P36 should be submitted in the record as objective evidence of the proper translation. At the present time, the Examiner is left with one machine translation stating one meaning, and another unknown-origin translation saying another. The ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A certified English language translation of human origin of P36 would certainly outweigh the provided machine translation P36 and be utilized as the proper translation of the paragraph.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
369
670
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response: Applicant is directed to the following case law pertinent to the above argument of there being no motivation to optimize toward or below the minimum diameter of 3 mm (=1.5 mm radius) of the taught diameter range of Kim:
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant’s claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender’s ‘suitable’ range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore ‘not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness’ made out by Zehender."). See MPEP § 2145, subsection X.D., for a discussion of "teaching away" references.
Although the above case law is explained in the context of teaching away (taken from MPEP 2144.05), it is pertinent to the instant scenario where there is a taught range of a diameter of 3-4 mm (=1.5-2 mm radius), with Kim providing the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable values thereof so as to disperse the pressure at the corner portion so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by the pressure of the punch” (P36). Thus, similar to the fact pattern found within In re Geisler, the teaching of a diameter of 3-4 mm (=1.5-2 mm) along with the desirable attribute this feature achieves (i.e., dispersion of pressure at the corner so as to prevent the battery case from being damaged by pressure of the punch) provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on curvature values at the bottom of Kim’s suitable range and to explore values below that range.
Thus, the curvature radius is thus established as a known-result effective variable in terms of its effect on pressure dispersion and damage (P36), wherein there is thus clear teaching, suggestion, and motivation to determine the optimum or workable ranges for this variable, and to explore ranges below 1.5 mm in the context of either of the taught range of 3-4 mm diameter (=1.5-2 mm diameter) (P35), or less than 3 mm 9 (=1.5 mm diameter) (P36).
For the avoidance of doubt, an additional rejection has been added with a secondary reference to Chen (see Rejection B above) to demonstrate that the curvature radius as claimed having a range overlapping with that claimed as well as a specific example that anticipates the range claimed is known in the state of the prior art. Chen explicitly teaches the curvature radius is within a range overlapping with that claimed and teaches a ranges of 0.6-1.2 mm and specific examples of 1 mm (pages 3-4). Accordingly, Chen provides additional teaching, suggestion, and motivation to provide the punch edge(s) of Kim with curvature radii having a range overlapping with that claimed, including a specific example that anticipates the range claimed.
As to the allegation of unexpected results, Applicant provides zero citations and/or explanations of data within the specification, and the mere conclusory remark falls incredibly short of the requirements outlined in MPEP § 716.02 to properly set forth and meet the burden of demonstrating new or unexpected results. The burden is on Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant (MPEP § 716.02(b), wherein mere conclusions as provided above with no citation to the specification or data of any kind are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence in the specification or a declaration (MPEP § 716.02(b)):
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
The Examiner previously addressed the allegations of unexpected results in the Office Action mailed 11/4/2024, which is reproduced below. It is further noted that it is entirely unclear to the Examiner how any new or unexpected results could be achieved if the curvature radius was not applied to all punch edges of each case- if only one punch edge is required to have the feature claimed, would not the other punch edges be problematic in terms of not achieving whatever alleged benefits exist?
It is further noted that there are taught overlapping ranges with that claimed and an example anticipating the range presented by Chen (see Rejection B). Additional prior art teaching the curvature radius as an optimizable feature is cited below:
Kim et al. (US 2017/0373286) (cited in the IDS filed with the instant response) further demonstrates that the curvature radius of the punch edges of a pouch battery case is a known result effective variable optimized in the prior art (entire disclosure relied upon):
PNG
media_image8.png
329
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also Park et al. (WO 2019/172524) published 9/12/2019 (available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) greater than one year behind the instant application foreign priority date (i.e., cannot be overcome); using US 2020/0280044 as an English-language translation and copy thereof; family member cited in the IDS filed 10/22/2025] which teaches the curvature radius feature:
PNG
media_image9.png
402
505
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See also CN 106252538 (cited in the IDS filed with the instant response) teaching a pouch battery with R4 optimized:
PNG
media_image10.png
154
385
media_image10.png
Greyscale
See also Yan et al. (US 2021/0218051), and the body of prior art cited in 10/22/2025 that has many additional references cited that are relevant to the curvature radius feature.
The unexpected new or results analysis from the 11/4/2024 Office Action:
First, in order to properly establish unexpected results, an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979); MPEP 716.02 (e).
The alleged unexpected results by Applicant are on the basis that the range claimed creates new/unexpected results; however, there is no comparison made to the claimed range of Kim which overlaps therewith. Furthermore, Chen clearly demonstrates the feature is a known-result effective variable, with additional ranges that overlap therewith and a value that anticipates the range claimed.
Second, the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)- MPEP 716.02, wherein Applicant has the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP 716.02.
Applicant provides no such objective evidence or explanation as to how the claimed invention, when compared to the closest prior art (Kim and Chen), differs in both statistical and practical significance. Thus, for this additional reason, the prior art rejections are maintained and the allegation of unexpected results is deficient for this additional reason.
Of note is there is no actual data provided in the instant application as filed or by way of affidavit/declaration. As noted in the case law of In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980), the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Third, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 7160.02(d)) (Examiner emphasis). In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See also the following case law (MPEP 716.02(d)):
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium);
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.); and
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.")
The claims are broadly drawn to a pouch case with no limit as to materials, composition, thickness, depth parameters, etc. Do the alleged unexpected results occur for the great number and variety of options that the claimed pouch battery case reads on? What if the pouch case battery was made of a steel casing (versus the specific pouch film composition defined in claim 22)? What if the depth of each cup part or one cup part was 3 mm (claim 20 requires the cup parts to each be 6.5 mm or more)? Do the unexpected results occur for all of these pouch battery cases encompassed by the broad claim? It is the position of the Examiner that the disclosure not support unexpected results for any and all pouch cases as broadly defined in the claim such that there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the pouch case described in more detail within the disclosure. Moreover, the disclosure has no objective data for the pouch case as defined in more detail within the disclosure and the dependent claims.
Thus, for at least the reasons above, individually and collectively, the argument for unexpected and new results for the claimed range(s) of the curvature radius is not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
414
662
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
151
667
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response: The Examiner did not allege in the prior Office Action that the curvature radius corresponding to a depth of the cup part was known-result effective variable. Instead, this is met in the Kim reference given Kim teaches a depth of the cup part and a curvature radius, wherein the calculated ratio overlaps the range claimed, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It is noted; however, that this feature is a known-result effective variable (see machine translation of abstract of Chen et al. (CN 209520237) cited in the IDS filed 10/22/2025) describing the rounded radius of the punch edges optimized relative to the depth of the battery packaging shell:
Abstract
The utility model provides a device for manufacturing a soft package battery shell, which comprises a punch comprising a first edge and a second edge which are intersected with each other on a horizontal plane, and a third edge on a vertical plane, and the first edge is longer than the second edge; the mold is arranged below the punch and is provided with a hollow space for molding the molding material; the punch is used for pressing a forming material into the space of the die; wherein a plane formed by the first edge and the second edge faces the die; a first edge, a second edge and a third edge of the punch and an angle formed by the first edge, the second edge and the third edge are rounded; the radius of the rounded first edge is 0.4-0.6 time of the depth of the internal space of the soft package battery shell, and the radiuses of the rounded second edge, the rounded third edge and the rounded corner are 0.2-0.4 time of the depth of the internal space of the soft package battery shell respectively. According to the soft package battery shell, the appearance of the soft package battery shell can be improved, and the risk of product liquid leakage can be avoided.
This reference is further relied upon in Rejection B.
As to the bridge-side punch edge allegedly not being supported by the figures or disclosure of Kim, the Examiner is respectfully at a loss as to how Applicant concluded that there is not a bridge-side punch edge when Kim teaches:
illustrated and taught first and second cup parts (P23);
an illustrated and taught bent portion 113 (“bridge”) (P25; Fig. 4) that is optimized in its dimensions (P28) and occurs due to the projection 350 (Fig. 8) (i.e., is achieved by the same process and analogous projection 212 achieving Applicants bridge construct shown in Fig. 6); and
the inner edges are explicitly detailed and optimized with respect to their shape and curvature (P35-36, 95).
The lack of specific naming or labeling of the provided punch edges that exists adjacent the bent portion 113 (“bridge”) relative to the other punch edges does not negate its presence as demonstrated in the figures and described in the disclosure of Kim. In other words, the lack of a specific designation or naming of the corresponding punch edges does not negate that there is a bridge within Kim, and punch edges that are “bridge-side punch edges,” despite not being explicitly designated as such by Kim. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, Applicant requests the Examiner telephone Applicant’s representative if an allowance is not being issued into the response filed 7/7/2025. In response, given the extent of the issues raised in this Office Action and the newly applied art (see Rejection B), the Examiner does not find that an interview would expedite the allowance of this application, especially given the need for a certified English translation not provided in conjunction with the 10/22/2025 response to substantiate the allegations made in the remarks section.
It is respectfully emphasized and reiterated that Applicant should cite support for amended and newly added claims which promotes clarity of the record, complies with the recited MPEP sections in this and other office actions, and can help promote compact prosecution as to avoiding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph rejections similar to the one found in the instant Office Action.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that a range of “at least one bridge-side punch edge” would be problematic under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph-- the same as it was with the prior, now-deleted amendment thereof (see analysis provided in section D of the Final Office Action mailed 7/22/2025).
Prosecution Insights