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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (2014/0099535) in view of Lee et al (KR 2007-0075507 and its machine translation).
Chu discloses a pouch-type battery cell wherein the battery comprises a pouch 14, a battery cell 10 in a cavity 15 (instant cup), wherein the pouch comprises a side extending from the cavity having sealing parts 56 along an outer portion of the side (Figure 5, 7), and an area between the sealing part 56 and the cavity which can equate to the instant “non-sealing part” 58, and wherein there is a fold in the non-sealing part and the side contacts the cavity when folded in without being adhered to the side of the cavity (instant cup) as required by the instant claims 1 and 2. The fold appears to be at nearly a 90 o angle (instant claim 3), and the side comprises two folds as seen figure 5 (instant claims 4 and 5).
[AltContent: textbox (Fold 1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fold 2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
304
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The side is folded at an angle approximately 180 o with respect to the first folding part, and approximately 90 o with respect to the second (instant claims 6-8).
With respect to the instant claim 15, the reference teaches that the pouch and cavity may accommodate the battery stack, which the reference teaches is a variable size and thickness; the designer may choose how many “a plurality of anodes and cathodes” is, each having a thickness and a width ([0025]-[0031]). The instant specification teaches that the cup/ cavity is designed to accommodate the stack, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed area through optimization of the electrode assembly to generate the power desired for the specific application including the size/ area of the instant claim 15.
Chu teaches a pouch-type battery comprising a cup part and a side part having sealing and non-sealing parts and folded as claimed. The reference further teaches that the pouch is multi-layered, comprising at least an inner sealing layer 36 (polymer, instant first layer), a barrier layer 34 (aluminum, instant third layer), a polymeric secondary barrier layer 38 (instant elongation layer, fourth layer), and an outer polymeric protection layer 40 (instant second layer):
PNG
media_image2.png
480
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu teaches that the barrier layer 34 includes an aluminum alloy and may have a thickness of approximately 40 microns, but is not limited thereto. The reference fails to specifically teach the size of the specifics of the aluminum, and known materials can be used.
Lee et al disclose a pouch-type battery case wherein the case includes a barrier layer comprising an aluminum alloy, preferably 8079 and 8021, each disclosed as preferred having a grain size of 13 microns (as disclosed by the instant specification; the instant specification states that the commercially available products have grain sizes of 13 to 21 microns, and 10 to 13 microns, respectively, as set forth by the instant claim 9, with AA8021 also having a the claimed amounts of iron and silicon as set forth by the instant claims 10 and 11; reference page 6, paragraph 2 to paragraph 7, page 7, paragraphs 12 and 13). The reference teaches that the barrier layer has a thickness of 20 to 150 microns, which encompasses the suggested (but not limited to) thickness of the barrier layer of Chu, and therefore suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material of Chu choosing a thickness of 50 to 80, or 55 to 65 microns to achieve the desired properties such as strength and blocking functions as taught by Lee et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ranges of the instant claims 1 and 12 through routine experimentation and optimization of the layer properties
Chu does teach that the sealing layer 36 (instant first layer) has a thickness of approximately 80 microns, which falls within the scope of the instant claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the pouch of Chu, choosing as the known aluminum alloy used for barrier layers, AA8021 having a make-up and grain size as set forth by the instant claims as taught to be known and useful by Lee et al, and in a thickness taught by Lee et al to achieve sufficient strength and blocking properties. The resultant pouch and layers would also meet the limitations of the instant claims 9-12.
Chu further teaches that secondary barrier layer 38 (instant fourth layer) may be polymeric (preferably nylon; [0035]) and have a thickness of approximately 20 microns (instant claims 13 and 14).
With respect to the instant claim 16, the instant specification defines the “elongation layer” has an additional layer between the third layer (aluminum barrier layer), and the second / outer layer. Chu teaches the layer 38 being a polymeric material which would meet the limitations of the elongation layer, along with the first layer 36 being a sealant layer, the second layer 40 being a protection layer, and third layer 34 being a barrier layer as required by the instant claim 16.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (11,245,147, US equivalent of KR 2019-0054735) in view of Lee et al.
Jang disclose a pouch-type battery comprising a pouch 120 having a recess wherein an electrode assembly 110 is placed, and wherein the pouch comprises a side portion 126along the recess having a sealed portion 124 and non-sealed portion 130, which includes two folded portions F1 and F2. The sealing portion 124 is located along the outer portion of the side, and the non-sealed portion is between the recess and the sealed portion, and the folds are located in the non-sealed portion as required by the instant claim 1. With respect to the instant claim 2, from the figures it can be seen that the side is in contact with the outer wall of the recess portion of the pouch but is not adhered to the side, at approximately a 90o angle (instant claim 3) and one folding portion is located between the other folding portion and the recess (instant claim 4) and folded onto a non-sealing part (instant claim 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The side is folded at an angle approximately 180 o with respect to the first folding part, and approximately 90 o with respect to the second (instant claims 6-8).
With respect to the instant claim 15, the reference teaches that the pouch and recess may accommodate the battery comprises an electrode assembly which may be a jellyroll or stack, and teaches that the designer may choose how the make-up of the assembly and size, each having a thickness and a width (column 3, line 30 to column 4, line 35, column 5, lines 25-34). The instant specification teaches that the cup/recess is designed to accommodate the assembly, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed area through optimization of the electrode assembly to generate the power desired for the specific application including the size/ area of the instant claim 15.
The reference is broad with respect to the layers of the pouch, and teaches that the pouch at least includes a three-layer structure comprising an interior insulation layer (polymer, such as polypropylene) 120a, a metal (aluminum alloy) layer 120b, and an exterior polymer layer (such as nylon) 120c. The reference is silent with respect to the specific thicknesses of each layer.
Lee et al has been discussed above, The reference teaches that the pouch includes layers 100a to 100d, wherein 100d is the polymer outermost layer , 100a is the outer cover layer (polymer, nylon), 100b an aluminum barrier, and 100c the inner sealant layer (polymer, PP film), wherein the outermost polymer film 100d equates to the instant second layer, the layer 100a equated to the fourth polymer layer between the barrier and outermost layer, the layer 100b equated to the third layer, and 100c equates to the first layer (sealant).
PNG
media_image4.png
164
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
60
892
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The thickenss of the barrier layer is 20 to 150 microns, the first sealtant layer has a thickness of 30 to 150 microns, and the outer layers 100a and 100d (instant fourth layer, elongation layer ; instant claims 13 and 16) each have a thicknes of 5 to 40 microns, falling within the scope of the instant claims 1, 12, and 14, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived that the claimed thickensses given the teachings of the reference and to optimize the blocking and stength properotes fo the pouch layer material. The reference as cited above teahces that the barrier layer comprising an aluminum alloy, preferably 8079 and 8021, each disclosed as preferred having a grain size of 13 microns (as disclosed by the instant specification; the instant specification states that the commercially available products have grain sizes of 13 to 21 microns, and 10 to 13 microns, respectively, as set forth by the instant claim 1, with AA8021 also having a the claimed amounts of iron and silicon as set forth by the instant claims 10 and 11; reference page 6, paragraph 2 to paragraph 7, page 7, paragraphs 12 and 13).
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the pouch of Jang, choosing as the layered structure and as the known aluminum alloy used for barrier layers, AA8021 having a make-up and grain size as set forth by the instant claims as taught to be known and useful by Lee et al, and in a thickness taught by Lee et al to achieve sufficient strength and blocking properties. The resultant pouch and layers would also meet the limitations of the instant claims 1, 10-14 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 to include the limitations of now cancelled claim 9. In the interview of 10/15/2025, the amendment to combine the limitations into the independent claim 1, and show the criticality of the ranges to overcome the 103 rejection of the amended claim 1. Applicant has amended the claim, however, as discussed above, the references of record fairly teach the claimed limitations for the layer thicknesses and the grain size of the aluminum alloy, and criticality of the range (demonstrating that unexpected and superior results are obtained by the layer thickness across the range and showing that the results outside of the range end points do not demonstrate unexpected and superior results) has not been established by the examples cited by applicant.
In addition to the amendment, applicant has argued that while the combination of references teaches the claimed elements, the references do not teach the technical advantage/ aim of the instant invention. The cited references are in the same field of endeavor, share similar components, materials, and are analogous art, and need not focus on the same goal as applicant, and a lack of teaching of solving the same problem does not overcome the rejection of record, and this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to prepare the third layer with an aluminum alloy having the claimed grain size and within the claimed range of 50 to 70 microns. Lee et al claims a list of eight well known and suitable aluminum alloys in the art (see claim 4), which includes 8021, preferred by the instant invention which is a commercially available product with a grain size within the instantly claimed range. With respect the thickness, the Chu primary reference teaches that the barrier layer 34 (aluminum alloy layer) has a suggested thickness of about 40 microns, but may have any suitable thickness ([0033], [0034]. The point is non-limiting and is about, meaning close to that range, and can be adjusted to protect the battery cell from degradation by preventing the passage of oxygen and moisture from the outside. Lee et al disclose a suitable range for such an aluminum barrier film to have any suitable thickness from 20 to 150 microns. The thickness is selected to block the inflow or leakage of material and provide strength, If the film s too thin it does not provide sufficient strength, and too thick decreases workability, thus leading one of skill in the art more toward the middle of the range and away from the endpoints. The Chu reference suggests a thickness closer to the middle of the range at 40 microns, and the middle of the range is about 65 nm. Also, the Jang reference is broad with respect to the layer thickness, but also teaches that the metal layer 120b blocks moisture and oxygen from being introduced into the cell and prevents electrolyte from leaking out, and that it is important to control the thickness of the layer so as to avoid decreased its blocking properties again reasonably lending to more of the middle of the range for optimal properties (column 6, lines 38-53). Alternatively, given that the layer is selected by the user to provide the optimal strength and blocking, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed range through routine experimentation and optimization of the strength and blocking properties of the layer. Therefore, the references of record reasonably and fairly teach the claimed layers and thickness (reasons to select a thickness) which would result in a thickness falling within the instantly claimed range.
With respect to the criticality of the ranges which applicant argues would overcome the teachings of the reference, applicant has argued that the claimed thickness of the third layer (aluminum alloy-containing layer) of 50 to 70 microns demonstrates the criticality of the range (see response, page 8, paragraphs 1-4). The examples cited following the arguments use a thickness of 80 microns, which is outside of the claimed range (examples 1, 2), with comparative examples at 40, 50, and 80 microns (see Table 1, page 10 of the response). No experimental sample includes a third layer having a thickness within the claimed range, let alone points across the range, and only provides examples well outside of the high end of the range. The grain sizes of the two aluminum alloys used in the inventive and the comparative examples are 11.6 and 16.8, respectively, but again do not show the criticality of the range as they use one point within the range and one point well outside of it. The discussion of various results on pages 10-15 are all drawn to these examples which are outside of, or showing only one point within the range and the same response to arguments applies, and each specific property will not be discussed individually, as the same argument applies.
Given that no examples include third layers having thicknesses within the range, nor points across and outside to demonstrate criticality, and wherein the grain size is only demonstrated at two points, one within the range and one well outside, the criticality of the ranges cannot be established as showing unexpected and superior results, and the 103 rejections over Chu or Jang in view of Lee et al, wherein Lee et al teaches a layer thickness range and known aluminum alloys that are commercially available and have grain sizes within the claimed range is maintained.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections above are maintained.
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 AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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 C. WALKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722