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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR101308242B1).
As to claim 6, Lee discloses …[0096] the method for forming a wound positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate… [0136] The present invention has been made to solve the above problems …[0139] the present invention is to provide a pouch-type secondary battery.
providing the a pouch [0139], having an inner space therein, the pouch having an electrode assembly contained therein [0148 – 0150],
the pouch having a sealing part along an edge thereof [0149-0150],
wherein the pouch having an expansion part (cutout portion (25) fig. 3 and cutouts 32a and 34a fig. 5) extending beyond the sealing part at a position at which a lead protrudes through the pouch ([200-0202], fig. 3),
a lead (tab (12)) having a first end connected to the electrode assembly (10) and a second end protruding through the pouch to an outside of the pouch [0198-0199];
and sealing the pouch by applying heat along the edge of the pouch to seal the pouch with the electrode assembly [0255-0259] and the lead mounted in the pouch ([0200-0202] fig. 3), the sealing being performed so that the expansion part is bonded to the lead. (the electrode tab 12 of the lower pouch film 34 is drawn out is formed with cutouts 34a on both sides thereof [0248-0249] fig.5… the upper and lower pouch layers 32 and 34 respectively forming the cutouts 32a and 34a as described above are sealed [0251-0252] fig. 5)
wherein the lead (tab (12)) is disposed on the expansion part (cutouts 32a and 34a [0248-0254]) together with a lead film (insulating tape (14)) having a portion protruding to the outside of the pouch ([0182-0183], fig.5), and an entire area of the expansion part overlies the portion of the lead film protruding to the outside of the pouch (fig. 5).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Lee discloses the expansion part (cutout (25)) extends beyond the sealing part in the longitudinal direction (fig.3) by a first protruding length (width L [0208] and the lead (12) extends beyond the sealing part in the longitudinal direction by a second protruding length, the first protruding length being is-less than 50% of a-the second protruding length (As shown in annotated figure 3 (below) the first protruding length being is-less than 50% of a-the second protruding length.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee, annotated fig. 3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 -5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR101308242B1), in view of Jeong et al. (KR20170013809A).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a secondary battery [0046], comprising:
an electrode assembly [0054];
a pouch inside which the electrode assembly is contained [0054], the pouch being sealed along an edge thereof [0053];
a lead (tab (12)) having a first end connected to the electrode assembly (10) and a second end protruding through the pouch to an outside of the pouch [0198-0199];
wherein the pouch includes an expansion part (cutout portion (25) of fig. 3 [0219] and cutout portions 32a and 34a of fig.5 [0250]) extending beyond the sealing part by a predetermined length (sealing width L, [0207-0208]) in a longitudinal direction of the lead (fig.3), and entire area of the expansion part overlies the portion of the lead film (insulating tape, (14)) protruding to the outside of the pouch (figs. 3 and 5).
Lee discloses a lead film (tape, (14)) disposed between the lead and the pouch (fig. 5, [0180-0183]) and the lead film having a portion protruding to the outside of the pouch (fig. 3) , but does not explicitly teach, adhering to each of the pouch and the lead at a sealing part of the pouch. In the same field of endeavor Jeong discloses a secondary battery [0012], and teaches insulated film (150) attached to the leads (141,142) disposed between the lead and the pouch (fig.1) and heat-sealed to the pouch [0011]. Jeong further teaches, the sealing between the battery case 120 has the insulation film 150 is attached in order to ensure the electrical insulation at the same time. [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Lee with the sealing of Jeong to ensure electrical isolation of the leads, and thereby safety of the battery.
As to claim 2, modified Lee discloses the expansion part (cutouts 32a and 34a, fig. 5) is thermally fused to the lead film (cutouts 32a and 34a being made of the same material as the pouch which is a material having heat adhesiveness [0248-0256], and the lead film is thermally fused to a surface of the lead [Jeong, [0011].
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, modified Lee discloses the expansion part has a width in a lateral direction of the lead perpendicular to the longitudinal direction however with regard to the limitation, “less than or equal to a width of the lead in the lateral direction,” It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Lee discloses the lead film (tape 14) has a width in the lateral direction greater than the width of the lead in the lateral direction (fig. 3).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Lee discloses the expansion part (cutout (25)) extends beyond the sealing part in the longitudinal direction (fig.3) by a first protruding length (width L [0208] and the lead (12) extends beyond the sealing part in the longitudinal direction by a second protruding length, the first protruding length being is-less than 50% of a-the second protruding length (As shown in annotated figure 3 (below) the first protruding length being is-less than 50% of a-the second protruding length.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee, annotated fig. 3)
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Lee discloses a lead (12) and lead film (tape 14) disposed on the expansion part ( (32a, 34a, fig. 5, [0248-0254]), but does not explicitly teach, during the sealing of the pouch, the expansion part is thermally fused to the lead film, and the lead film is thermally fused to the surface of the lead.
In the same field of endeavor Jeong discloses a secondary battery [0012], and teaches insulated film (150) attached to the leads (141,142) disposed on the lead and the pouch (fig.1) and heat-sealed to the pouch [0011]. Jeong further teaches, the electrode leads (141, 142) has also increased the sealing between the battery case 120 has the insulation film 150 is attached in order to ensure the electrical insulation at the same time. [0010]… heat-sealed in a through the leads 141 and 142, insulating film 150 [0011]. Providing the lead film thermally fused to the surface of the lead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Lee with the sealing of Jeong to ensure electrical isolation of the leads, and thereby safety of the battery.
Where in the combination the expansion part of Lee substituted for the (upper part (125) fig. 1) of Jeong would provide the insulated film heat sealed to the expansion part of Lee. It should be noted he simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, Lee discloses the lead film (14) has a width in a lateral direction of the lead perpendicular to a longitudinal direction in which the lead extends greater than a width of the lead in the lateral direction (fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 6, “the protruding portion (X) in the annotated figure 3 of Lee shown above is not a portion formed to protrude from the pouch 20. Rather, it is a portion created after sealing is performed, when the region indicated by reference numeral 25 is cut and removed… Therefore, the structure taught in Lee does not correspond to the expansion part recited in claims 1 and 6.” The office respectfully disagrees as Lee provides an embodiment where the cutout portions are formed in advance as illustrated in fig. 5, [0237-0240]. Further, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Furthermore, formed to protrude from the pouch doesn’t preclude being formed by a cutout, the end product still yields the same device. Additionally, the evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) does not change this analysis. In Soni, the Court declined to consider the Office’s argument that the evidence of nonobviousness was not commensurate in scope with the claim because it had not been raised by the examiner Id. 54 F.3d at 751, 34 USPQ2d at 1688.
Applicant argues, page 7, “Jeong does not disclose any configuration corresponding to the expansion part of the present invention.” The office notes Jeong is not relied upon to teach the expansion joint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Baek et al. (US2016/0218347A1) Pouch battery with expansion part.
Ahn et al. (US2011/0064991A1) Tab cavities with expansion part.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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 T 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728