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 06/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/13/2023, 12/10/2024, 03/03/2025 and 05/19/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 06/13/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In claim 4 it is not clear what kind of structural limitation described by the term “greater”: sealing force (how it was measured) areas or thickness of corresponding sealing portion?
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 1, 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by KR20160100602 to Oh (Oh, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a secondary battery (claim 16) comprising: an electrode assembly in which electrodes and a separator are alternately stacked (claim 1), and a pouch in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (claim 1) and of which a portion comprises a sealing part that is a bonded portion, wherein the sealing part comprises a first sealing area spaced a predetermined distance from the electrode assembly and disposed at an edge of the pouch (230, 122 Fig. 3), and a second sealing area (rounded wall 210, Fig. 3) that is provided at an area corresponding to the electrode assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Oh
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses a device for sealing (sealing device, claim 1) a secondary battery (claim 16), the device comprising: a jig (die 110) on which configured to receive a pouch in which an electrode assembly is accommodated is disposed (para 15) and a sealing tool (press 120, configured to seal a first sealing area disposed at an edge of the pouch , and configured to seal a second sealing area (outer wall 210, para 26,27,30, Fig. 3) disposed in an area corresponding to the electrode assembly of the pouch, (para52,55, 58 and 61), wherein the sealing tool performs the sealing of the first sealing area (outer and upper circumferential overlapping portions (230) and the second sealing area by heat and pressure (para 52).
Regarding claim 14, Oh discless a method for sealing a secondary battery (claim 1, claim 16 and claim 18), the method comprising: a disposing process of disposing, on a jig, the secondary battery including a pouch in which an electrode assembly is accommodated (para 15) and a sealing process of sealing a first sealing area disposed at an edge of the pouch disposed on the jig, and a second sealing area corresponding to the electrode assembly of the pouch, by using a sealing tool (para 41,46,52).
Regarding claim 17, Oh discloses wherein the sealing process further comprises sealing the first sealing area and the second sealing area at the same time by using the sealing tool (para 48, para 52.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Alternatively, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20140041057 to Do (Do, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Do discloses a secondary battery (claim 1) comprising: an electrode assembly in which electrodes and a separator are alternately stacked (para 31) and a pouch (claim 1) in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (para 31) and of which a portion comprises a sealing part that is a bonded portion, wherein the sealing part comprises a first sealing area spaced a predetermined distance from the electrode assembly and disposed at an edge of the pouch (20,Fig. 2) and a second sealing area (30, Fig. 2) that is provided at an area corresponding to the electrode assembly. Since the second sealing area provided at the area corresponding electrode assembly and claim language of independent claim 1 does not require the second sealing area correspond to entire electrode assembly (i.e. being continues) claim 1 is anticipated by Do. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the third sealing portion 40 with the second sealing portion 30 in order to improve safety in case of impact, such as dropping or application of external force.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Regarding claim 7, Do discloses herein the first sealing area and the second sealing area are areas bonded and sealed by heat and pressure (para 26).
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20140041057 to Do (Do, machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Do discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein, including wherein the edge of the electrode assembly corresponds to an end of each of the electrodes and an end of the separator(para 34). Do does not expressly disclose wherein the second sealing area is provided at an area corresponding to an edge of the electrode assembly .However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the second sealing part at an area corresponding to an edge of the electrode assembly since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 4, Do discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Do does not expressly disclose wherein adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator. However, the criticality of making adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator-r a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Do, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was file to make adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6 Do discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Do does not expressly disclose wherein herein the second sealing areaarea -a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Do, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the area of second sealing area as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 6.
Claims 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20140041057 to Do in view of US 20180342710 to Yoon (Yoon).
Regarding claim 3, Do discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein, including the first sealing area is provided at an area corresponding to a bonding area at the edge of the pouch (see Fig.2 above). Do does not expressly disclose the second sealing area at an area corresponding to bonding areas at an end of the electrode and an end of the separator.
Yoon teaches a secondary battery (para 55) having a pouch case with an electrode assembly received in the case, wherein the case comprising a primary sealing area and a secondary sealing area, disposed on an edge of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3). Yoon also teaches that such structural design may prevent physical contact and collision between the electrodes and fundamentally prevent generation of a short circuit caused thereby (Abstract). 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 secondary battery of Do with the second sealing area disposed at an end of the electrode and an end of the separator , as taught by Yon , because such modification may prevent physical contact and collision between the electrodes and fundamentally prevent generation of a short circuit caused thereby (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Do discloses wherein an area of the second sealing area is greater than an area of the first sealing area (Yoon, Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 9, modified Do discloses herein the second sealing area comprises an area overlapping the electrode assembly when viewed from an upper side (Yoon, Fig. 5c)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20140041057 to Do in view of US 20130115487 to Park (Park).
Regarding claim 5, Do discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Do does not disclose expressly disclose wherein an adhesion of the second sealing area corresponds to adhesion of the first sealing area.
Park teaches a secondary battery , wherein a sealing part 111 is formed to seal the case 110 in a pouch type through application and adhesion of a sealing member A (para 38, Fig, 3). Park also teaches that an electrode assembly covered by sealing member 112 have the same adhesion as sealing member 111 (para 53). Therefore, adhesion of the second sealing area corresponds to adhesion of the first sealing area is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up the adhesion of the second sealing area to adhesion of the first sealing area corresponding to each other as taught by Park in order to prevent risks of firing, explosion, or the like due to generation of gas or overheating, and thus improve the safety thereof (Park, para 55).
Claims 10-13 (alternatively) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as US 2013/0244093 to Min (Min).
Regarding claim 10, Min discloses a device (apparatus , para 68) for sealing a secondary battery (para 20), the device comprising: a jig (holder 210, claim 14)) on which configured to receive a pouch in which an electrode assembly is accommodated is disposed; and a sealing tool configured to seal a first sealing area ( pair of suction pads 230) disposed at an edge of the pouch and configured to seal a second sealing area disposed in an area corresponding to the electrode assembly of the pouch (pair of sealing blocks 220 ). wherein the sealing tool performs the sealing of the second sealing area by heat and pressure. Min does not expressly disclose application of heat (only vacuum pressure) for sealing of the first sealed area. However, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply heat also for the sealing of the first sealed area in order to faster remove traces of electrolytes and gasses.
Regarding claim 11, Min discloses the invention as disused above as applied to claim 10 and incorporated therein. Min does not expressly disclose disposition of the suction pads as upper and lower, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the pads as depicted above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even Min does not expressly disclose disposition of the suction pads as upper and lower, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the pads as depicted above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C) (See marked Fig. 8 above).
Regarding claim 12, Min discloses the invention as disused above as applied to claim 11 and incorporated therein. Min does not expressly disclose a disposition of the second blocks , wherein the second upper block and the second lower block perform the sealing of the second sealing area while pressing a portion of the electrode assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rearrange position and change a shape of the second upper block and the second lower block in order to perform the sealing of the second sealing area while pressing a portion of the electrode assembly , since it has been held that rearranging parts and changing of shape involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 13, Min discloses the invention as disused above as applied to claim 10 and incorporated therein. Min does not expressly disclose, wherein, in the sealing tool, the first upper block and the second upper block are integral. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the first upper block and the second upper block integral , since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)( : MPEP 2144.04 (V-B))
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR20160100602 to Oh.
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 14 and incorporated therein. Oh does not expressly disclose the step wherein the second sealing areatime the invention was filed to adjust the area of second sealing area as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 14 and incorporated therein. Do does not expressly disclose the step wherein adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator. However, the criticality of making adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator-r a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Oh, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was file to make adhesion between an end of the electrode and an end of the separator, which correspond to the electrode assembly, is greater than adhesion between a portion other than the end of the electrode and a portion other than the end of the separator as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 16.
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