DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on February 10, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 - 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,552,327 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the enclosure is defined as a pouch (claim 6) and it would have been routine and obvious to a skilled artisan to have the battery cell housed in the pouch (the difference in claim 1).
Regarding the amended language to claim 1, the Examiner notes that this is substantially the same limitations as in previous claim 8 and these limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth previously with regard to claim 8.
With regard to the new claim 13, see claim 11 of US ‘327 B2, which claims a similar concept of only partially extending through.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 - 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,502 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been routine and obvious to a skilled artisan to have the battery cell housed in the pouch (the difference in claim 1) as the use of enclosures/pouches to encapsulate batteries is well established in the arts.
With regard to the new claim 13, see claim 12 of US ‘502 B2, which claims a similar concept of only partially extending through.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0259979 A1) in view of He et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2011/0281152 A1) for the reasons of record as set forth in Paragraph No. 8 of the Office Action mailed on October 10, 2025.
Regarding the amended language to claim 1, the Examiner notes that this is substantially the same limitations as in previous claim 8 and these limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth previously with regard to claim 8.
Regarding new claim 13, this claim claims a similar concept as recited in claim 12 and is met for the same reasons as previously set forth with regard to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 14 – 21 require both the anode and cathode layer structures to include apertures that only extend partially therethrough. While the Examiner maintains that Ryu et al. in view of He et al. is open to the concept of partially extending the apertures through a layer, and the Examiner has maintained the rejections on claims 12 and 13 (single layer with partially extending through apertures), the Examiner deems that there is insufficient specificity in the prior art to teach or render obvious a battery structure meeting the totality of the limitations of claims 14 – 21. See also Response to Arguments, below.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejection of claims 1 – 7 and 9 - 13 in view of various references
No arguments have been presented and these rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1 – 7 and 9 - 13 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) – Ryu et al. in view of He et al.
Applicant(s) argue(s) that the placement of the through-hole in the center provides unexpected superior characteristics. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that He et al. clearly recognizes the use of the through-holes (apertures) for facilitating passage of the electrolyte into the cell (e.g. see Paragraph 0023). A skilled artisan would readily appreciate that if the aperture was in the center of the cell, it would facilitate passage of the electrolyte into the center of the cell. The Examiner deems that this concept would have been obvious and expected to a skilled artisan. As support of the Examiner’s position that this would have been obvious, the Examiner points to KR ‘623 B1, cited with this action as pertinent prior art, which discloses (e.g. see Figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
624
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Abstract Translation, at least pages 1, 3 – 4 and 6) that the use of through-holes in the center of the cell allows for facilitating movement of the electrolyte, while also speeding up the impregnation with the electrolyte. The Examiner notes that KR ‘623 B1 explicitly calls for the placement in the center-line, albeit through-holes all the way through the layers (i.e. not reading on claims 14 – 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Applicants’ amendment resulted in embodiments not previously considered (i.e. new claim 13 (rejected) and claims 14 – 21 (allowed)) which necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and hence the finality of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights