RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the drawings and the claims, filed 17 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application
Claims 10-15 remain withdrawn in the application
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 10 has the status identifier “(Previously Presented)” which should be corrected to “(Withdrawn)”.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the drawings, made of record in the office action mailed on 20 April 2026, page 3, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 17 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of claim 2 made of record in the office action mailed 20 April 2026, page 4, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 17 July 2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the width has a length that is 10~90% of a width of the folded pouch case” in line 4 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “10~90%” is defining a range with an inclusive or exclusive lower limit of 10% and an inclusive or exclusive upper limit approximately 90%, two alternative options of 10% or approximately 90%, or some other option altogether.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737).
Regarding Claim 1, Oh teaches a secondary battery (abstract) which includes a pouch case having a storage part and a surplus part adjacent the storage part, the surplus part being defined by two mating surfaces of the pouch case that contact each other after the pouch case is folded (the mating surface forms when the pouch case is folded and ref. #211 and #221 come together, [0012], and fig. 2 ref. #203, see below), a cell (electrode assembly) located in the storage part of the pouch case (abstract), and a gas absorbent (gas-absorbing polymer) located between the two mating surfaces of the surplus part ([0009], [0042], and fig. 3 ref. #340). The surplus part is a part of the pouch case that is capable of being removed after activation of the secondary battery (i.e. during disposal of the battery, the surplus part can be removed to open the battery and remove the cell for proper disposal).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3-6, Oh also teaches the gas absorbent is a coating layer on one of the two mating surfaces of the surplus part in the form of forming a coating layer ([0013], as the gas absorbent layer covers the entire pouch case it will be on one of the mating surfaces). The gas absorbent is a powder applied to one mating surface of the two mating surfaces of the surplus part ([0048] and [0055], the powdered gas-absorbent is used to form a gas-absorbing polymer layer), and the gas absorbent is adhered to one mating surface of the two mating surfaces, the gas absorbent having a flat shape (fig. 3 ref. #310, the gas-absorbing layer is flat) that extends continuously along a length of the surplus part (as the gas absorbent layer covers the entirety of the pouch chase, it will be extend continuously).
Regarding Claim 8, Oh also teaches the gas absorbent comprises azo-linked porous organic polymers, such as 1,3,5,7-tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) adamantine (TAPA), 2,6,12-triaminotriptycene (TAT), tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) methane (TAM), or 1,3,5-tris(4-aminophenyl) benzene (TAB).
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Jang (Korean Patent Application Publication No 2011/0061293). For prior art discussion see English translation for KR-20110061293-A.
Oh is relied upon as described above
Regarding Claim 2, Oh also teaches the surplus part has a length ending along a side of the pouch case and a width that is perpendicular to the length (fig. 2, see above).
Oh does not teach that the width has a length that is 10% to 90% of a width of the folded pouch case.
Jang teaches a pouch-type battery case having gas-gathering residue portion (title). The gas-gathering residue portion is a surplus portion (fig. 7, ref. #131) that has a width of 30% to 100% of a width of the folded pouch case (of the electrode accommodating portion, page 9, paragraph 2, lines 1-3). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10% to 90% of a width of the folded pouch case. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a width of the surplus portion of 30% to 100% of a width of the folded pouch case as taught by Jang in the pouch case of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as smaller than 30% results in a lower capacity to collect gas while above 100% results in an increase in an unnecessary material, in turn increasing cost (Oh, page 11, paragraph 2, lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 9, Oh does not teach the surplus part includes a gas pocket, the gas absorbent being located in the gas pocket.
Jang also teaches a gas pocket part that is in the surplus part (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 7-9, and fig. 4, ref. #132). The gas pocket allows for the removal of gas generated during the activation process of the battery (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 9-10), which in turn improves long term stability of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a gas pocket part in the surplus part as taught by Jang in the pouch case of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it allows for improved long-term stability of the secondary battery.
As the gas absorbent layer as taught by Oh covers the entirety of the interior of the pouch case, it would also be interposed within the gas pocket part.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Hwang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0028128)
Oh is relied upon as described above.
Oh does not teach the gas absorbent extends discontinuously a length of the surplus part.
Hwang teaches a pouch-shaped battery case for secondary batteries capable of discharging gas (title). Hwang also teaches a surplus portion (sealed portions, fig. 4 ref. #311, #312) that contains gas discharge members that extend discontinuously along the long-axis surface of the surplus part (figs. 1 and 4, ref. #130, #330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the discontinuous spacing of the interposing gas discharge members as taught by Hwang applied to the gas absorbent layer of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it allows for increased sealing performance of the of the pouch case (Hwang, [0048], and Oh, [0045]).
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Jang (Korean Patent Application Publication No 2011/0061293). For prior art discussion see English translation for KR-20110061293-A.
Regarding Claim 1, Oh teaches a secondary battery (abstract) which includes a pouch case having a storage part and a surplus part adjacent the storage part, the surplus part being defined by two mating surfaces of the pouch case that contact each other after the pouch case is folded (the mating surface forms when the pouch case is folded and ref. #211 and #221 come together, [0012], and fig. 2 ref. #203, see below), a cell (electrode assembly) located in the storage part of the pouch case (abstract), and a gas absorbent (gas-absorbing polymer) located between the two mating surfaces of the surplus part ([0009], [0042], and fig. 3 ref. #340).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Oh does not explicitly teach the surplus part is a part of the pouch case that is configured to be removed after activation of the secondary battery.
Jang teaches a pouch-type battery case having gas-gathering residue portion (title). The gas-gathering residue portion is a surplus portion (gas collection excess part, page 13 lines 7-18 and fig. 3, ref. #130). Jang further teaches that the surplus portion (fig. 7, ref. #131) is a part of the pouch case that is configured to be removed after activation of the secondary battery (page 13 lines 7-20, the gas collection excess part is converted into a gas pocket portion, which is then removed, see also figs. 8 and 9). Having the surplus portion configured to be removed after activation of the secondary battery allows for complete removal of the gas generated during battery activation (page 13 lines 19-20), as well as for an overall smaller battery to be formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the surplus part of Oh be a part of the pouch case that is configured to be removed after activation of the secondary battery, as taught by Jang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this configuration in order to facilitate complete removal of the gas generated and the formation of a smaller battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Oh also teaches the surplus part has a length ending along a side of the pouch case and a width that is perpendicular to the length (fig. 2, see above).
Oh does not teach that the width has a length that is 10% to 90% of a width of the folded pouch case.
Jang further teaches the gas-gathering residue portion is a surplus portion (fig. 7, ref. #131) that has a width of 30% to 100% of a width of the folded pouch case (of the electrode accommodating portion, page 9, paragraph 2, lines 1-3). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10% to 90% of a width of the folded pouch case. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a width of the surplus portion of 30% to 100% of a width of the folded pouch case as taught by Jang in the pouch case of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as smaller than 30% results in a lower capacity to collect gas while above 100% results in an increase in an unnecessary material, in turn increasing cost (Oh, page 11, paragraph 2, lines 3-6).
Regarding Claims 3-6, Oh also teaches the gas absorbent is a coating layer on one of the two mating surfaces of the surplus part in the form of forming a coating layer ([0013], as the gas absorbent layer covers the entire pouch case it will be on one of the mating surfaces). The gas absorbent is a powder applied to one mating surface of the two mating surfaces of the surplus part ([0048] and [0055], the powdered gas-absorbent is used to form a gas-absorbing polymer layer), and the gas absorbent is adhered to one mating surface of the two mating surfaces, the gas absorbent having a flat shape (fig. 3 ref. #310, the gas-absorbing layer is flat) that extends continuously along a length of the surplus part (as the gas absorbent layer covers the entirety of the pouch chase, it will be extend continuously).
Regarding Claim 8, Oh also teaches the gas absorbent comprises azo-linked porous organic polymers, such as 1,3,5,7-tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) adamantine (TAPA), 2,6,12-triaminotriptycene (TAT), tetrakis(4-aminophenyl) methane (TAM), or 1,3,5-tris(4-aminophenyl) benzene (TAB).
Regarding Claim 9, Oh does not teach the surplus part includes a gas pocket, the gas absorbent being located in the gas pocket.
Jang also teaches a gas pocket part that is in the surplus part (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 7-9, and fig. 4, ref. #132). The gas pocket allows for the removal of gas generated during the activation process of the battery (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 9-10), which in turn improves long term stability of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a gas pocket part in the surplus part as taught by Jang in the pouch case of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it allows for improved long-term stability of the secondary battery.
As the gas absorbent layer as taught by Oh covers the entirety of the interior of the pouch case, it would also be interposed within the gas pocket part.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Jang (Korean Patent Application Publication No 2011/0061293), further in view of Hwang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0028128). For prior art discussion see English translation for KR-20110061293-A.
Oh and Jang are relied upon as described above.
Modified Oh does not teach the gas absorbent extends discontinuously a length of the surplus part.
Hwang teaches a pouch-shaped battery case for secondary batteries capable of discharging gas (title). Hwang also teaches a surplus portion (sealed portions, fig. 4 ref. #311, #312) that contains gas discharge members that extend discontinuously along the long-axis surface of the surplus part (figs. 1 and 4, ref. #130, #330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the discontinuous spacing of the interposing gas discharge members as taught by Hwang applied to the gas absorbent layer of Oh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it allows for increased sealing performance of the of the pouch case (Hwang, [0048], and Oh, [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 July 2026 regarding the objection to the drawings of record have been considered but are moot since the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of record of claims 1, 3-6, and 8 as being anticipated by Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737), pages 5-6, have been considered but have not been found convincing.
Applicant argues that Oh discloses a gas-absorbing layer that is provided on an internal surface of the pouch case, but specifically excludes it from the sealing part 211, therefore Oh does not teach the surplus part of the claimed invention, and none of the secondary references teach this deficiency. (Applicant’s remarks, pages 9-10). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Oh states, in paragraph [0016] “The gas-absorbing polymer layer may be coated on all parts of the battery case.” Oh later explains an embodiment of the invention that does not contain the gas-absorbing polymer layer in the sealing part, but as this is not the embodiment utilized in the office actions of record the argument is moot. The secondary references are not needed to teach this specific limitation as it is taught by Oh. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues that Oh does not teach the newly added limitation “the gas part is a part of the pouch case that is configured to be removed after activation of the secondary battery.” (Applicant’s remarks, pages 7 and 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The surplus part of Oh is a part of the pouch case that is capable of being removed after activation of the secondary battery (i.e. during disposal of the battery, the surplus part can be removed to open the battery and remove the cell for proper disposal). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of record of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Hwang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0028128) has been considered but has not been found convincing.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Hwang to modify Oh as Hwang teaches an alternative gas removal structure (Applicant’s remarks, page 10). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Hwang teaches a pouch case for a secondary battery capable of discharging gas (title) Hwang is considered to be analogous art to Oh. Further, Hwang teaches a surplus portion (sealed portions, fig. 4 ref. #311, #312) that contains gas discharge members that extend discontinuously along the long-axis surface of the surplus part (figs. 1 and 4, ref. #130, #330), which afford the benefit of increased sealing performance of the of the pouch case (Hwang, [0048], and Oh, [0045]). As Oh notes that having the gas-absorbent layer in the sealing portion may deteriorate sealing force ([0016]), the combination of the teach of discontinuously extending gas discharging portions of Hwang with the gas-absorbing layer of Oh would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive upon the claimed limitation of claim 7.
Applicant further argues that Oh does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, therefore the rejection of claim 7 should be withdrawn (Applicant’s remarks, page 10). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Oh does disclose the limitations of claim 1 (see the argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 above), the rejection of claim 7 will also be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of record of claims 2 and 9 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) in view of Jang (Korean Patent Application Publication No 2011/0061293), pages 7-8, have been considered but have not been found convincing. Applicant argues that Oh does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, therefore the rejections of claims 2 and 9 should be withdrawn (Applicant’s remarks, page 10). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Oh does disclose the limitations of claim 1 (see the argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 above), the rejections of claims 2 and 9 will also be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 09/23/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights