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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 11/17/2025:
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 11 have been amended.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been overcome in light of the amendments. The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection is applied. All changed made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4 and 12 recite “…the [first/second] friction area is formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from each of both ends of the bridge part…” Therefore, even if only one “first [first or second] area” is formed, it will be a predetermined distance from each of both ends of the bridge part.
Claims 5 and 13 recite “…the [first/second] friction area is formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from each of both the ends of the bridge part…”. Therefore, if the closest end of the bridge part is 5 mm from the first friction area, then the first friction area is also “5 mm or more” from the other of both ends of the bridge part.
Claims 14-15 are considered product-by-process. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of an apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. The claims are directed to an apparatus, i.e., a structure which can be termed a machine of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, the claims are structural claims and as such must be distinguished from the prior art based on structure. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 and MPEP 2173.05(g)
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Jinho (KR 20200117177 A) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20120110552 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jinho teaches an apparatus 100 for manufacturing a pouch of a secondary battery (P1), the apparatus comprising:
a lower die 30, in which an accommodation groove, or receiving portion 33 for molding a cup part of the pouch is formed in a base surface, on which the pouch 30 is configured to be disposed (P36-45; Fig. 2-5);
a punch 50 configured to be inserted into the accommodation groove 33 of the lower die 30 to mold the cup part of the pouch (P33-45; Fig. 2-5); and
a stripper 40 to press a peripheral portion 23 of the pouch 20 disposed in a periphery of a portion to be molded into the cup part of the pouch by the punch 50 (P40-80; Fig. 2-5),
wherein the stripper 40 and the lower die 30 are configured to press and grip upper and lower portions of the peripheral portion of the pouch (P50-70; Fig. 3-5), respectively,
wherein a left accommodation groove and a right accommodation groove 33 are formed in the lower die 33 (Fig. 2-5),
wherein a bridge part 35 connecting the left and right accommodation grooves 33 to each other formed between the left accommodation groove and the right accommodation groove, wherein the bridge part 35 is formed at a lower elevation than elevations of top surfaces of the left and right accommodation grooves 35 (P45-53; Fig. 2-5),
in the state in which the peripheral portion 23 of the pouch is gripped by the stripper 40 and the lower die 30, the punch 50 is configured to be inserted into the accommodation groove 33 to mold the cup part 21a of the pouch 20 (Fig. 1-5).
Jinho is silent in teaching a friction area, which is an area having surface roughness greater than that of the peripheral portion, is formed on a pressing surface of the lower die or the stripper, which presses the peripheral portion of the pouch; however, Hong, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for forming a product with a cup shape and a peripheral portion of the workpiece positioned outside the punch during formation of the cup portion (abstract). The apparatus includes a die 12, a punch 23, a stripper, and a friction area 3 (P5-6.14: Fig. 1). Hong is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. In this case, both Jinho and the instant application are concerned with solving problems of preventing excess material inflow during punching. MPEP 2141.01
The friction area 3 of Hong, which is an area having surface roughness greater than that of the peripheral portion, is formed on a pressing surface of the lower die, which presses the peripheral portion of the pouch to suppress surface damage and wrinkling that may occur during compression and punching (P5.14.18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a friction area, an area having surface roughness greater than that of the peripheral portion, on a pressing surface of the lower die of Jinho, which presses the peripheral portion of the pouch, to prevent wrinkling and surface damage that occur during compression and punching, as taught by Hong. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 2, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches the friction area comprises a first friction area formed on the lower die (P2.14; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches forming the friction area on an area disposed outside the bridge part on the base surface, or on either side/outside of the punched cup part of the base surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches the first friction area is formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from each of both ends of the bridge part, wherein Hong teaches the first friction area, which can be applied to existing molds, can be embedded into the die completely accommodated in accommodation space of the die (P10.21.32; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jinho in view of Hong is silent in teaching the first friction area is formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from each of both the ends of the bridge part; however, Jinho teaches formation of a pouch battery, that can be used in the same application as the instant disclosure. Hong of modified Jinho teaches forming the friction areas on either side of the punch (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the first friction (on the side of the punch opposite to the bridge part) must be formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from each of both the ends of the bridge part, in the case where the punch cavity, or battery has a width of around or greater than 5 mm. Where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. “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.” MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 14, modified Jinho is silent in teaching the pressure applied to the peripheral portion of the pouch by the stripper and the lower die on the friction area is 10% to 30% greater than a reference pressure that is a pressure applied to the peripheral portion of the pouch other than the friction area; however, Hong of modified Jinho teaches the friction area is used to increase the force and pressure applied in that specific area, or peripheral portion of the pouch (P4.10.32-36).
Furthermore, "The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)
Therefore, because the apparatus meets the structural requirements in claims 1 and 14 it is capable of being used at the applied pressure relative to a reference pressure. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114
Regarding claim 15, modified Jinho is silent in teaching the reference pressure is 0.3 bars to 0.35 bars; however, because the apparatus meets the structural requirements in claims 1 and 14-15 it is capable of being used at the applied pressure relative to a reference pressure. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jinho in view of Hong as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Garnett et al. (US 2004/0083786).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches the friction area is used for adjusting friction between a surface of the mold and the material being punched, where the friction can be created by a roughened surface, also including trapezoidal or mountain-shaped protrusions, or an arc shape (P8.28-30.32.38; Fig. 2-5).
Modified Jinho in view of Hong is silent in teaching the friction area comprises a second friction area formed on the stripper; however, Garnett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for forming a product with a cup shape and a peripheral portion of the workpiece positioned outside the punch during formation of the cup portion (P18-24; Fig. 1-2).
Garnett teaches the friction area comprises a second friction area formed on the stripper to provide more control over the sheet metal during the forming process (P22-25; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the friction area comprise a second friction area formed on the stripper of modified Jinho to improve control and prevent wrinkles, as taught by Garnett. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jinho in view of Hong and Garnett teaches the second friction area formed on a stripper outer area that is the pressing surface of the stripper, which faces a bridge part outer area that is an area disposed outside the bridge part on the base surface (Hong; Fig. 1 and Garnett; Fig. 1-8 – all showing the friction areas arranged outside perimeter of punch including portions that would be considered the bridge part outer area of Jinho).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jinho in view of Garnett teaches the second friction area is formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from a point of the stripper, which corresponds to each of both of the ends of the bridge parts (P20-24; Fig. 1-2.8).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jinho in view of Hong is silent in teaching the second friction area is formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from a point of the stripper which corresponds to each of both the ends of the bridge part; however, Jinho teaches formation of a pouch battery, that can be used in the same application as the instant disclosure. Hong of modified Jinho teaches forming the friction areas on either side of the punch (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the second friction (on the side of the punch opposite to the bridge part) must be formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from each of both the ends of the bridge part, in the case where the punch cavity, or battery has a width of around or greater than 5 mm. Where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. “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.” MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 10, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches the friction area is used for adjusting friction between a surface of the mold and the material being punched, where the friction can be created by a roughened surface, also including trapezoidal or mountain-shaped protrusions, or an arc shape and a first friction area formed on the die (P8.28-30.32.38; Fig. 2-5).
Modified Jinho in view of Hong is silent in teaching the friction area comprises a second friction area formed on the stripper; however, Garnett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for forming a product with a cup shape and a peripheral portion of the workpiece positioned outside the punch during formation of the cup portion (P18-24; Fig. 1-2).
Garnett teaches the friction area comprises a first friction area formed on the die and a second friction area formed on the stripper to provide more control over the sheet metal during the forming process (P22-25; Fig. 4.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the friction area comprise a second friction area formed on the stripper of Jinho to improve control and prevent wrinkles, as taught by Garnett. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, modified Jinho in view of Hong teaches forming the friction area on an area disposed outside the bridge part on the base surface, or on either side/outside of the punched cup part of the base surface (Fig. 1); and modified Jinho in view of Hong and Garnett teach the second friction area formed on a stripper outer area that is the pressing surface of the stripper, which faces a bridge part outer area that is an area disposed outside the bridge part on the base surface (Hong; Fig. 1 and Garnett; Fig. 1-8 – all showing the friction areas arranged outside perimeter of punch including portions that would be considered the bridge part outer area of Jinho).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jinho in view of Hong and Garnett teach the first friction area is formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from each of both ends of the bridge part, and the second friction area is formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from a point of the stripper, which corresponds to each of both the ends of the bridge part, based on the claim interpretation provided above, where Hong (Fig. 1) and Garnett (Fig. 8) show the friction areas embedded in the die and stripper.
Regarding claim 13, modified Jinho in view of Hong and Garnett is silent in teaching the first and second friction area formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from a point which corresponds to each of both the ends of the bridge part; however, Jinho teaches formation of a pouch battery, that can be used in the same application as the instant disclosure. Hong of modified Jinho teaches forming the friction areas on either side of the punch (Fig. 1) while Garnett teaches forming the first and second friction areas in the same relative position on the die and stripper respectively (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the first and second friction (on the side of the punch opposite to the bridge part) must be formed to be spaced a distance of 5 mm or more from each of both the ends of the bridge part, in the case where the punch cavity, or battery has a width of around or greater than 5 mm. Where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. “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.” MPEP 2144
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
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 Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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 Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752