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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn in the application
Amendments to the drawings and claims, filed 28 June 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, the secondary battery, Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 20 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no undue search burden for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive as, for applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371, restriction is proper when the claimed inventions lack unity of invention. As seen in the written requirement for restriction mailed on January 30, 2026, groups I and II lack unity because the common technical features were taught by Oh et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0252737) and do not define a special technical feature. Thus, restriction is proper. Additionally, it is deemed to be reasonable to restrict the inventions due to the divergence in the searches required for the product and method inventions requiring separate classification and text searches, as the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the size and quality of the drawings make it difficult to identify specific features of the claimed invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 short axis surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this short axis surface is in reference to as none has been positively claimed, whether that be the length of the surplus part, the width of the surplus part, or another surface entirely. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the short axis surface” as being the same as “a width” in claim 2, line 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the short-axis surface 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 (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
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 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, 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 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 short-axis surface 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. 3, ref. #130) that has a width of 30% to 100% of a width of the folded pouch case (of the electrode accommodating portion, page 11, 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).
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 the removal of gas generated during the activation process of the battery (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 9-10), which in turn improve long term stability of the 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]).
Conclusion
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 04/14/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights