RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND DEVICE FOR FORMING POUCH OF THE SAME
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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/10/2023, 9/25/2024, and 10/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadar et al. (EP 4 039 385 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jamadar et al. teach a device for forming a pouch of a rechargeable battery (Abstract), the device comprising:
a die including a first opening, the die being configured to support a first surface of a substrate of the pouch (Annotated Fig. 4, element 2 has an opening “L1” and supports the underside of the foil, element 7.);
a stripper facing the die and including a second opening, the second opening being larger than the first opening, and the stripper being configured to hold a second surface of the substrate of the pouch (Annotated Fig. 4, element 3 has an opening “L2” and holds the top side of the foil, element 7. L2 is larger than L1.);
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Jamadar
a reverse punch in the first opening, the reverse punch being configured to ascend through the first opening toward the second opening while pushing the first surface of the substrate of the pouch into the second opening to perform a preliminary stretching (Fig. 4, element 10.); and
a punch in the second opening (Fig. 4, element 4 discloses a punch.), the punch being configured to descend through the second opening toward the first opening while pushing the second surface of the substrate of the pouch into the first opening (Claim 9; Figs. 6 and 7 disclose element 4 descends through “L1” while element 10 ascends.).
Jamadar et al. do not teach the punch being configured to supplement a thickness of a side wall corner portion of the pouch and a thickness of a bottom connected to the side wall corner portion while performing a secondary stretching and absorbing the preliminary stretching.
However, Jamadar et al. disclose the punch can be configured to be a nearly identical shape as seen in the present application (Fig. 18 discloses the punch, element 4, has flattening in the punch surface, element 22, which slightly curved sides which is identical to element 40 in in Figs. 1-5 of the present application.).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 2-9 are either not disclosed or teach away from the invention of Jamadar. For example, the reverse forming portion disclosed in claims 4-9 is a configuration that is actually undesired in Jamadar (Paragraph 0006 discloses this as a “springback” which is what the reference prevents). Any modification with Jamadar would teach away and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hwang et al. (KR 2015-0130002 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 May 26th, 2026
Prosecution Insights