DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 04/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 04/20/2023, 07/22/2024, 12/04/2024, 06/09/2025 and 08/27/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 04/20/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim s 1-13 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged (since no arguments regarding election/restriction was provided, the election is considered as without traverse).
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/06/2023. Claims 1-17 were pending. Claims 1-7 are now pending. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from examination as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 201815986 to Iizuka (Iizuka, machine translation)
Regarding claim 8, Iizuka discloses a pouch film of a secondary battery, the pouch film comprising: an inner layer; a metal layer (16) stacked adjacent to the inner layer (19) and an outer layer (13) (Fig. 1) which is stacked adjacent to the metal layer, the outer layer having and in which colored dye particles (colorant component, para 15). mixed therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Iizuka discloses that base material layer 13 has a high tensile strength and elongation (para 25), therefore fully capable to permit measurement of an elongation rate up to critical elongation (re claim 10) using color measurements of the outer layer. Since the pouch film of Iizuka is substantially similar to that of the instant Application as claimed the limitation: becomes brighter than a reference color is inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 12, Iizuka discloses a multilayer structure including a two layer film in which a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin film is laminated on a biaxially stretched polyamide (nylon) film and that the colorant component is contained in the resin component.
Regarding claim 13, Iizuka discloses wherein the metal layer is made of aluminum (para 4), and the inner layer is made of polypropylene (para 2, para 48).
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.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0156551 to Cho in view of KR 20180095294 to Jun (Jun, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses method for manufacturing (Abstract) a pouch (para 70) case of a secondary battery (Abstract), the method comprising: laminating a metal layer (213) on the upper part of an inner layer (211) and laminating an outer layer (220), provided with a colored layer, on the upper part of the metal layer (213) (para 71, para 78, Fig. 3), forming the pouch film into a three-dimensional recessed shape configured to receive an electrode assembly is-accommodated therein (Fig.1). Cho also teaches that defects of metal film can be can be easily detected by disposing the colored layer n the case 200 (Fig. 3, para 32, para 79). Cho does not expressly disclose a step of measuring an elongation rate of the pouch
Jun teaches a steel plate surface defect detection system (claim 1) and A method for detecting defects on a steel plate surface (claim 6), the method comprising producing a sample of the cut steel plate according to the input elongation (claim 1), so that the steel plate has a sunken area according to the elongation (claim 2) and a step of determining a surface defect based color difference that appear in the captured image of the image capturing unit and the image of the limit sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cho with the step of measuring of the elongation rate , as taught by Jun, in order to provide to provide reliable method for detection defects and as such increase safety of batteries.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho discloses a step comprising a control unit determines whether there is a surface defect based on at least one of a curve in the shape of a line, a length of the curve, and a color difference that appear in the captured image of the image capturing unit and the image of the limit sample (Jun, claim 3). Since defect detection based on color difference, a data table is inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition, Jun teaches that The elongation value can be modified according to the user's needs (Jun, para 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the elongation rate depending on plate material, battery size and safety requirements , as taught by Jun, in order to provide batteries suiotable for use in the predetermined conditions.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho discloses a step of stacking polyethylene terephthalate, which comprises having a colored dye therein, above nylon ( Cho, para 76) .
Regarding claim 6, modified Cho discloses polypropylene (para 73).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cho discloses wherein he metal layer is made of aluminum (Cho, claim 16)
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0156551to Cho in view of KR20180095294 to Jun and further in view of US 20110045337 to Lee (Lee).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Cho does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer has a thickness of 12 µm to 30 µm.
Lee teaches a pouch battery, comprising an outer layer of polyethylene terephthalate and having thickness from 5 µm to 50 µm (para 19).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the outer layer of polyethylene terephthalate of modified Cho within the range of 5 µm to 50 µm in order to improve flexibility a retention period and cell performance.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 201815986 to Iizuka in view of JP JP2017177412 to Shiomi (Shiomi, machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Iizuka discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 10 and incorporated therein. Iizuka does not expressly disclose wherein the elongation rate is 40%.
Shiomi teaches a polyester film used for the exterior packaging of a battery (claim 7), the film comprising metal foil, and a sealant layer laminated in this order (claim 8). Also, Shiomi teaches that film can have up to 60% of elongation (para 30). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the elongation of the outer layer of Iizuka within range disclosed by Shiomi because such modification would improve moisture resistance, resistance to contents (resistance to compounds such as electrolyte used as the contents, i.e., stability against the contents), and formability (para 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751