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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/4/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2020-0146226 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/23/23, 5/22/24, and 11/25/24, and 7/8/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/23/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020/0117177 A (“KR’177”) in view of US 2019/0229301 (“US’301”).
As to Claim 1:
KR’177 discloses:
an apparatus for manufacturing a pouch of a secondary battery, including a die (30), a stripper (40), and a punch (50) (p. 1, lines 5–15; Fig. 1);
the lower die having a base surface on which a pouch film is disposed and including a receiving portion (33) formed therein for molding cup parts of the pouch, the receiving portion being stepped downward from a seating end (p. 3, lines 1–12; Fig. 3);
a plurality of cup-forming regions defined in the receiving portion, configured to mold cup parts of the pouch when the pouch film is placed on the base surface (p. 3, lines 13–22; Fig. 3);
a punch configured to be inserted into the receiving portion of the lower die to mold the cup parts of the pouch (p. 4, lines 1–10; Fig. 3);
a stripper (or clamping/pressing member) provided to press a peripheral part of the pouch film surrounding the portion to be molded as the cup part, thereby stabilizing the pouch film during press forming (p. 4, lines 11–20; Fig. 3); and
two side-by-side cup-forming regions corresponding to left and right cup parts, with a bridge portion (35) formed between the left and right regions to partition and connect them (p. 3, lines 23–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the bridge part comprises a pillar portion having lateral sides formed as two straight lines, nor that the bridge part includes a top portion formed as a curve on an upper end of the pillar portion, nor that the height of the top portion is less than one-half of the width of the pillar portion. KR’177 discloses the bridge portion as a protruding partition but does not specify the claimed pillar geometry or height-to-width relationship (p. 3, lines 23–30).
US’301 discloses a die for forming a pouch of a secondary battery that includes multiple accommodation grooves and a bridge groove formed between the accommodation grooves (Fig. 2; [0057]–[0064]). US’301 further discloses that the bridge portion is formed as a protruding pillar-like structure whose lateral sides are defined by straight side boundaries (as shown by the bridge groove sidewalls in cross-section) and whose upper end is formed as a curved or rounded surface to improve formability and durability during pouch forming (Figs. 3–4; [0064]–[0067]).
US’301 additionally discloses absolute dimensional ranges for the bridge height (for example, on the order of approximately 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm) relative to the overall bridge structure, and teaches that bridge geometry, including height and width, is selected to reduce stress concentration and prevent damage during press forming ([0064]–[0067]). These teachings indicate that the relationship between bridge height and bridge width is a result-effective variable in pouch forming die design.
KR’177 and US’301 are analogous art because both references are directed to dies and apparatuses for press-forming pouch-type secondary batteries, and both address structural features of accommodation grooves and bridge portions formed between adjacent cup parts to improve manufacturability and durability of the pouch.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bridge part of the pouch-manufacturing apparatus of KR’177 to have the pillar-like bridge geometry disclosed in US’301, including straight lateral sides and a curved top portion, in order to reduce stress concentration, improve formability, and enhance durability of the pouch during press forming, as expressly taught by US’301.
Furthermore, selecting the height of the curved top portion to be less than one-half of the width of the pillar portion would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (bridge height relative to bridge width), as US’301 teaches that bridge dimensions are chosen to balance structural support and formability during pouch forming.
As to Claim 2:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion protrudes upward from the base surface of the lower die to form a bridge region between the cup parts during press forming, thereby requiring the bridge portion to have a finite protrusion height sufficient to maintain structural integrity during forming (p. 3, lines 23–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the height of the top portion of the bridge part is greater than one-tenth of the width of the pillar portion, nor does KR’177 provide an explicit numerical relationship between the height and width of the bridge part.
US’301 further discloses absolute dimensional ranges for the bridge portion, including a bridge height on the order of approximately 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm, and illustrates a bridge width that is several times larger than the bridge height ([0064]–[0067]). US’301 teaches that the geometry of the bridge portion, including the height relative to the width, is selected to reduce stress concentration and improve durability and formability during pouch press forming ([0064]–[0067]). These teachings indicate that the relationship between bridge height and bridge width is a result-effective variable in pouch-forming die design.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the height of the top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 to be greater than one-tenth of the width of the pillar portion, as taught by the dimensional ranges and functional considerations disclosed in US’301, in order to ensure that the bridge portion is not excessively thin and thereby reduce stress concentration and improve durability during press forming. Selecting such a height-to-width relationship represents an obvious matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
As to Claim 3:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion protrudes upward from the base surface of the lower die and is formed with a finite height sufficient to maintain structural integrity and shape during press forming of the pouch (p. 3, lines 23–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the width of the pillar portion ranges from 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm, nor does KR’177 explicitly disclose that the height of the top portion ranges from 0.09 mm to 0.55 mm.
US’301 further discloses absolute dimensional ranges for the bridge portion formed between accommodation grooves, including a bridge width on the order of approximately 1 mm and a bridge height on the order of approximately 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm ([0064]–[0067]). US’301 teaches that the dimensions of the bridge portion, including both width and height, are selected to reduce stress concentration and improve durability and formability during pouch press forming ([0064]–[0067]). The dimensional ranges disclosed in US’301 encompass and overlap the claimed width range of 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm and the claimed height range of 0.09 mm to 0.55 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the width of the pillar portion and the height of the top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 to fall within the ranges of 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm and 0.09 mm to 0.55 mm, respectively, as taught by the dimensional ranges and functional considerations disclosed in US’301, in order to balance structural support and formability and reduce stress concentration during press forming. Selecting such dimensional sub-ranges represents an obvious matter of routine optimization of known result-effective variables.
As to Claim 4:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion protrudes upward from the base surface of the lower die and is formed with a finite height and width sufficient to maintain structural integrity and shape during press forming (p. 3, lines 23–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the width of the pillar portion of the bridge part ranges from 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm, nor does KR’177 explicitly disclose that the height of the top portion of the bridge part ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm.
US’301 further discloses absolute dimensional ranges for the bridge portion, including a bridge width on the order of approximately 1 mm and a bridge height on the order of approximately 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm, and teaches that these dimensions are selected to reduce stress concentration and improve durability and formability during pouch press forming ([0064]–[0067]). These teachings encompass and overlap the claimed width range of 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm and the claimed height range of 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the width of the pillar portion and the height of the top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 to fall within the ranges of 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm and 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm, respectively, as taught by the dimensional ranges and functional considerations disclosed in US’301, in order to balance structural support and formability and reduce stress concentration during press forming. Selecting such specific dimensional sub-ranges represents an obvious matter of routine optimization of known result-effective variables.
As to Claim 5:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion includes a rounded upper surface to facilitate forming and reduce damage during press molding (p. 3, lines 27–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the curve of the top portion has a shape forming a portion of an oval, nor does KR’177 specify the precise geometric profile of the curved top portion beyond being generally curved or rounded.
US’301 further discloses that the upper end of the bridge portion is formed with a smooth, rounded curvature and illustrates the curved upper surface as an elongated, non-circular curved profile, consistent with an oval or elliptical arc, selected to reduce stress concentration and improve durability and formability during pouch press forming (Figs. 3–4; [0064]–[0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the curved top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 with a shape forming a portion of an oval, as taught by the rounded, elongated bridge-top geometry disclosed in US’301, in order to reduce stress concentration and improve formability and durability during pouch press forming. Selecting an oval-shaped curved profile represents a predictable design choice for achieving the known benefits taught by US’301.
As to Claim 6:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion includes a curved top portion formed to facilitate press forming and reduce damage to the pouch during molding (p. 3, lines 27–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the highest point (top point) of the curved top portion of the bridge part is disposed on a central longitudinal axis of the pillar portion, nor does KR’177 describe the precise positional relationship of the top point relative to a central axis of the bridge.
US’301 further discloses that the bridge portion is formed with a symmetrical curved upper surface, as illustrated in cross-section, wherein the maximum height of the curved top portion is located at the center of the bridge width, corresponding to a central longitudinal axis of the bridge (pillar) portion (Figs. 3–4; [0064]–[0067]). US’301 teaches that such a symmetric configuration improves stress distribution and durability during pouch press forming.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the curved top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 such that the highest point of the top portion is disposed on a central longitudinal axis of the pillar portion, as taught by the symmetrical bridge geometry disclosed in US’301, in order to achieve uniform stress distribution and improved durability during pouch press forming. Such a modification represents a predictable and routine design choice consistent with the teachings of the prior art.
As to Claim 7:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion includes a curved top portion formed to facilitate press forming and reduce damage during molding (p. 3, lines 27–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that the curved top portion of the bridge part has a horizontally symmetrical shape with respect to a central longitudinal axis of the pillar portion.
US’301 further discloses that the bridge portion is formed with a symmetrical curved upper surface, as illustrated in cross-section, wherein the curved top portion is horizontally symmetrical about a central longitudinal axis of the bridge (pillar) portion (Figs. 3–4; [0064]–[0067]). US’301 teaches that such symmetry improves uniform stress distribution and stability during pouch press forming.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the curved top portion of the bridge part in the apparatus of KR’177 to have a horizontally symmetrical shape with respect to a central longitudinal axis, as taught by the symmetrical bridge geometry disclosed in US’301, in order to achieve uniform stress distribution and stable forming during pouch press forming. Such a modification represents a predictable and routine symmetry-based design choice.
As to Claim 8:
KR’177 further discloses that the bridge portion extends along a longitudinal direction and includes a curved top portion formed along the length of the bridge to facilitate press forming (p. 3, lines 23–30; Fig. 3).
However, KR’177 does not explicitly disclose that a cross-sectional shape of the top portion is uniform in a longitudinal direction extending along the central longitudinal axis of the pillar portion.
US’301 further discloses that the bridge portion extends in a longitudinal direction and is formed with a constant, uniform cross-sectional profile along its length, including a curved top portion having the same cross-section at different longitudinal positions (Figs. 3–4; [0064]–[0067]). US’301 teaches that providing a uniform cross-section along the bridge improves forming consistency and durability during pouch press forming.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the bridge part of the apparatus of KR’177 such that the cross-sectional shape of the top portion is uniform in a longitudinal direction extending along the central longitudinal axis, as taught by US’301, in order to achieve consistent press forming, uniform stress distribution, and improved durability along the length of the bridge. Such a modification represents a predictable and routine tooling design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723