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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2023 and 05/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 15-19 have been withdrawn in view of the restriction requirement.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pattern part", however, claim 1 had been amended to read “a first pattern part” thus the claim lacks antecedent basis. Claim 3 is rejected for depending upon claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 contains the phrase “a first weak sealing part”. This phrase is interpreted to mean that the part is designed to produce a weaker seal than another region of the sealing part and thus a design that would produce a weaker seal would read on the claimed “a first weak sealing part”. Likewise, claim 12 contains the phrase “a second weak sealing part” and is interpreted to mean that the part is designed to produce a weaker seal than another region of the sealing part.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20140086907 A-as cited in the IDS) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0175337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses an apparatus for sealing a battery case (Figures 3-8 lower and upper pressing jigs 100 and 200 used to seal to side area of the pouch casing), the apparatus comprises:
A first sealing tool configured to seal a side of a pouch type secondary battery case (Figures 3-8 lower and upper pressing jigs 100 and 200 used to seal to side area of the pouch casing; upper jig 100 can be considered the first sealing tool) wherein the first sealing tool comprises:
A body (Annotated Figure 7 below, body of the pressing jig has extensions that press the surface to seal the side of the battery); and
A first sealing part formed at one side of the body and configured to directly press the side so as to seal the side (Annotated Figure 7 below, body of the pressing jig has extensions that press the surface to seal the side of the battery),
PNG
media_image1.png
419
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the first sealing part comprises:
A first weak sealing part configured to seal an inner portion of the side and formed to be recessed inward (Figure 7 below and Figure 6; the pressing surface towards the inner portion of the case will have a weaker seal as the pressure due to the shape will be less than the outer region of the pressing structure; [0062-0068]).
PNG
media_image2.png
419
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cho is silent with respect to wherein a first pattern part configured to seal an outer portion of the side and formed by regularly repeating a first rib formed to protrude outward and a first groove formed to be recessed inward as Cho discloses a stepped structure as seen in Figures and 7 and is silent with respect to a repeating rib/groove structure, however, discloses wherein the pressing jigs are not limited to such shapes ([0062-0068]).
Lee discloses a sealing apparatus for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of sealing apparatus for secondary batteries. Lee discloses a sealing member 210 having a first sealing piece 211 and a second sealing piece 212 (Figure 2; [0033-0035], [0009]) wherein the sealing pieces has a protrusion part and groove part 211b/212b that form a pattern structure in order to prevent the sealing layer from leaking while also preventing the sealant layer of the battery from moving while sealing ([0035-0038]) and thus the structure of a pattern prevents the case from leaking and from moving while sealing the battery casing to create a sufficient seal for the battery housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Lee such that the shape of the pressing jig of Cho has alternating protrusions and grooves formed on the pressing surface of the pressing jig in order to prevent leaking and create a sufficient seal for the battery housing. The resulting modification of the shape of the pressing jig would read on the alternating rib and groove configuration while the inner side of the pressing jig having a thickness less than the outer side of the pressing jig as taught by Cho that would produce a weaker seal than the outer end of the casing. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the first groove comprises a longitudinal groove formed in a longitudinal direction of the pattern part (Lee Figure 2; non-thermal fuse parts 211b/212b and thermal fuse parts 211a/212a where in the non-thermal fuse parts read as the groove and are formed in a longitudinal direction of the pattern part, see modification of claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
597
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Lee further discloses wherein the first groove comprises a width formed in a width direction of the first pattern part (Lee Figure 2; non-thermal fuse parts 211b/212b and thermal fuse parts 211a/212a where in the non-thermal fuse parts read as the groove and are formed in a width direction of the pattern part, see modification of claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
597
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Cho discloses wherein the pressing jig can have a groove portion and a stepped portion in which the inner region of the stepped portion is a first weak sealing part, see modification of claim 1. Modified Cho is silent with respect to wherein the groove is recessed deeper than the first weak sealing part, however, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the relative size of the groove to be deeper than the stepped portion of the weak sealing part as a change in size of the groove with reasonable expectation of success absent evidence of criticality. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Cho further discloses wherein the first weak sealing part is recessed inward by a thickness of 10-20 micrometers (Cho Figures 6-7 height of the step can range from several micrometers up to 10 mm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Modified Cho further discloses wherein the first pattern part, the first groove is recessed inward by a thickness greater than the first weak sealing part, see modification of claim 4. Modified Cho is silent with respect to the groove having a thickness of 40-60 micrometers, however, a skilled artisan can adjust the relative size of the thickness of the groove to be between 40-60 micrometers absent any expected results or criticality. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Cho discloses wherein the pressing jig has a first rib and first groove, however, is silent with respect to the first rib and groove having the same width. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to adjust the width of the rib and grooves to have the same size as a simple change in size of the ribs/grooves. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Cho further discloses a second sealing tool configured to be in contact with the first sealing tool with the side therebetween to press the other surface of the side (Figures 3-8, lower pressing jig 200 used to seal the other side of the casing and is in thermal contact and indirectly connected with the upper pressing jig to heat seal the casing of the battery),
A second sealing part of the second sealing tool comprises (Figures 3-8 lower and upper pressing jigs 100 and 200 used to seal to side area of the pouch casing; lower jig 200 can be considered the second sealing tool):
A second weak sealing part configured to seal the inner portion of the side and formed to be recessed inward (Figure 7 below and Figure 6; the pressing surface towards the inner portion of the case will have a weaker seal as the pressure due to the shape will be less than the outer region of the pressing structure; [0062-0068]).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cho is silent with respect to wherein a second pattern part configured to seal an outer portion of the side and formed by regularly repeating a second rib formed to protrude outward and a second groove formed to be recessed inward as Cho discloses a stepped structure as seen in Figures and 7 and is silent with respect to a repeating rib/groove structure, however, discloses wherein the pressing jigs are not limited to such shapes ([0062-0068]).
Lee discloses a sealing apparatus for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of sealing apparatus for secondary batteries. Lee discloses a sealing member 210 having a first sealing piece 211 and a second sealing piece 212 (Figure 2; [0033-0035], [0009]) wherein the sealing pieces has a protrusion part and groove part 211b/212b that form a pattern structure in order to prevent the sealing layer from leaking while also preventing the sealant layer of the battery from moving while sealing ([0035-0038]) and thus the structure of a pattern prevents the case from leaking and from moving while sealing the battery casing to create a sufficient seal for the battery housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Lee such that the shape of the pressing jig of Cho has alternating protrusions and grooves formed on the pressing surface of the pressing jig in order to prevent leaking and create a sufficient seal for the battery housing. The resulting modification of the shape of the pressing jig would read on the alternating rib and groove configuration while the inner side of the pressing jig having a thickness less than the outer side of the pressing jig as taught by Cho that would produce a weaker seal than the outer end of the casing. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 12. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Modified Cho further discloses wherein the upper and lower jigs through the modifications of claims 1 and 12 have ribs and grooves formed within the pressing surface of the pressing jigs, however is silent with respect to how the ribs and grooves align with one another, specifically wherein, in the first pattern part and the second pattern part, the first rib and the second groove are in contact with each other with the side therebetween, and the second rib and the first groove are in contact with each other with the side therebetween. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to rearrange the ribs/ grooves formed in the upper and lower jigs such that the ribs of the upper and lower jigs are aligned with the grooves of the lower and upper jigs as a simple rearrangement of the modification. The resulting modification would render obvious the structure of claim 13. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Cho further discloses wherein an electrode lead of the secondary battery is configured to be inserted into the a groove of the first sealing part (Cho Figures 1-9; leads 11 and 12 extend out of the pouch case). Modified Cho discloses a singular groove and is silent with respect to a second groove, however, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to duplicate the number of grooves located in the pattern part of the sealing part and thus have the electrode lead extend out of the battery housing as taught by Cho. The resulting duplication of parts of the groove such that the electrode leads extends out through the second groove is rendered obvious through the modification. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20140086907 A-as cited in the IDS) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0175337 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0207171 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Cho discloses wherein the shape of the pressing jig is necessarily limited, however, is silent with respect to wherein the first weak sealing part has a rounded edge.
Choi discloses a method for sealing a pouch casing of a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of sealing a pouch casing for a battery. Choi discloses wherein a press jig is used to seal a part of the casing and wherein the pressing jig can have a rectangular shape or a rectangular shape having a curved region at an area location towards the battery cell assembly (Figure 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to change the shape of the first weak sealing part to have a rounded edge as taught by Choi as a simple change in shape of the pressing jig edge located near the electrode assembly. The resulting modification renders obvious all the claim limitations of claim 8. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Modified Cho discloses wherein the weak sealing part has a rounded shape, however, is silent as to the shape and extent of the curvature, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the shape/extent of the curved region such that the curved region has a curvature radius of 0.7 mm-0.8 mm as a simple change in shape of the curved region. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Cho discloses wherein the shape of the pressing jig is necessarily limited, however, is silent with respect to wherein the first pattern part has a rounded edge.
Choi discloses a method for sealing a pouch casing of a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of sealing a pouch casing for a battery. Choi discloses wherein a press jig is used to seal a part of the casing and wherein the pressing jig can have a rectangular shape or a rectangular shape having a curved region (Figure 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to change the shape of the pressing jig/first pattern part to have a rounded edge as taught by Choi as a simple change in shape of the pressing jig. The resulting modification renders obvious all the claim limitations of claim 10. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Cho discloses wherein the first pattern part has a rounded shape, however, is silent as to the shape and extent of the curvature, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the shape/extent of the curved region such that the curved region has a curvature radius of 0.2 mm-0.3 mm as a simple change in shape of the curved region. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2006/0093905 A1)- discloses a pouch type secondary battery being heat sealed by plates 850a/850b that have protrusions and grooves.
Yoon (US 2011/0244315 A1)-discloses a pouch type secondary battery and fabrication method including a pressing jig to heat seal sides of the electrode assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728