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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a method of sealing a pouch-type battery case, classified in H01M 50/105.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a pouch-type secondary battery, classified in H01M 50/186.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product Group II need not be made by the process of Group I. Group I recites a manner in which a battery case is bent to encapsulate and seal a battery. Group II could be made with a process that details how the case is itself made (e.g. extrusion, molding, etc).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Wilfred Patrick on 12/30/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 11-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2020/0067029 A1).
Before stating the reasons for rejection, the Office would like to establish the directions of Park. Park is not as explicit as the instant invention as labeling directions (see instant Figure 1). However, the directions exist and are the same in Park. The Office considers the first direction of Park to be that of the width of the battery 120, the second direction to be the length, and the third direction to be the thickness. The length is the longest dimension, the width the intermediate dimension, and the thickness the shortest dimension.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Park discloses an apparatus comprising: a battery case 110 including a first case unit 111 and a second case unit 112, the directions extending as established in paragraph 10 above (see Figure 3); the first and second case units are connected in the width direction along the length direction (the middle vertical line in Figure 3, labeled as 116 in Figure 4); the curved arrow over the middle vertical line of Figure 3 shows the bend (paragraph 56); an electrode assembly 120 accommodated in the case units (paragraph 41); both case units including an extension portion in both the length and width directions (areas surrounding elements 111 and 112 in Figure 3). The Office interprets the last clause of Claim 11 as follows: a first sealing region including a first region facing a second region and a second sealing region including a seventh region facing an eighth regions, the first and second sealing regions being on the extension portions, part in the width direction. There is no material delineation between any of the regions (i.e. the first seal can be the second seal and vice versa; the first region can be the second region and vice versa). Park discloses a first sealing part 114 and a second sealing part 117, each of which comes in contact with itself along the width direction when folded (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses that the accommodation portion of the second case unit has a concave shape to accommodate at least a part of the electrode assembly (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses that lengths of the first regions of the first case unit and the second case unit in the first direction are each smaller than a length of the electrode assembly in the first direction, or lengths of the second regions of the first case unit and the second case unit in the first direction are each smaller than the length of the electrode assembly in the first direction (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses that the other end in the first direction of the end portion of the one side in the second direction at the end portion of the other side of the electrode assembly in the first direction is positioned between one end and the other end in the first direction of each of the first regions of the first case unit and the second case unit (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses that the other end in the first direction of the end portion of the other side in the second direction at the end portion of the other side of the electrode assembly in the first direction is positioned between one end and the other end in the first direction of each of the second regions of the first case unit and the second case unit (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses that the first regions of the first case unit and the second case unit are positioned at the one side of the electrode assembly in the second direction, or the second regions of the first case unit and the second case unit are positioned at the other side of the electrode assembly in the second direction (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses that the first regions of the first case unit and the second case unit included in the first sealing regions are included in the seventh regions of the first case unit and the second case unit included in the second sealing regions, or the second regions of the first case unit and the second case unit included in the first sealing regions are included in the eighth regions of the first case unit and the second case unit included in the second sealing regions (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses that the electrode assembly has a quadrangular cross section extending in the first direction and the second direction and includes a first corner positioned at one side in the first direction and the one side in the second direction, a second corner positioned at the one side in the first direction and the other side in the second direction, a third corner positioned at the other side in the first direction and the one side in the second direction, and a fourth corner positioned at the other side in the first direction and the other side in the second direction, the first regions being adjacent to the third corner, and the second regions being adjacent to the fourth corner (see Figures 3, 4, 7, and 8 to understand the shape of the assembly).
Regarding claim 20, the Office’s interpretation of the claim should be clarified. The claim states and the sealing regions include multiple regions facing one another. But the actual lineation of the regions is arbitrary (i.e. they can be any size and there is nothing that distinguishes them from one another). It is the Office’s position that the sealing regions of Park include an infinite number of arbitrary, adjacent regions of any size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725