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 of Group I in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/03/2026.
Claims 1-10 are currently under examination.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, the element “the pair of accommodating parts” lacks antecedent basis, creating indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 9, the element “both ends of the cover member” lacks antecedent basis because there is no mention of the cover member having ends, nor which positions in which the ends are located. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, creating indefiniteness.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20040142236-A1, Kim.
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches
A pouch-type secondary battery (30) comprising:
A pouch-type battery case (310);
A sealing part (322 and 332) configured to be heat-sealed in a state of accommodating an electrode assembly ([0037]);
And a cover member (40) positioned between an at least one thickness side (curved ends of 31) of the electrode assembly (31) and the pouch-type battery case (See Fig. 3), wherein the cover member is disposed on the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3).
Wherein the at least one thickness side extends in a stacking direction of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 5, winding creates layers in a stacking direction).
Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches the cover member extends along the sealing part (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches the sealing part is disposed along an outer periphery of the pair of accommodating parts (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches the cover member is in contact with the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches the cover member completely covers the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches the electrode assembly is a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (See Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20040142236-A1, KIM
in view of US-20190280253-A1, ISHIMATSU with support from INEOS, Typical Engineering Properties of Polypropylene (Year: 2014) and ZOLTEK, Carbon Fiber SDS (Year: 2025).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of KIM are explained in the rejections above. Additionally, KIM teaches the cover member contains a polymer film layer 41, which may be formed from polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene, or PET ([0049]).
KIM is silent with regards to the melting temperature of the cover member, as well as the thermal compression temperature of the sealing part when formed.
However, ISHIMATSU teaches a pouch-type battery (Fig. 6) comprising a sealing member (30A and 30B) made of polypropylene ([0026]) and a carbon fiber cover member (41A and 41B). ISHIMATSU teaches that the use of carbon fiber as a cover member allows for reduced size, weight and thickness of the battery ([0020]). INEOS teaches that polypropylene has a melting point of 143-151°C (page 2) and ZOLTEK teaches that carbon fiber has a decomposition point at about 3500°C (page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the cover member of KIM out of carbon fiber as shown in ISHIMATSU to gain the benefit of a reduced battery weight, size and thickness.
Claim 5 is unpatentable over this modification of KIM because it teaches a covering member with a melting point higher than that of the heat-sealing element.
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20040142236-A1, KIM in view of US-20170149027-A1, KANG.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of KIM are explained in the 102(a)(1) rejections above.
Additionally, KIM teaches the pouch-type battery case has pair of accommodating parts (320, 330), wherein one of the pair of accommodating parts has an indent (331) configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3), wherein the pouch-type battery case is configured to be bent along a bending line (see crease in Fig. 3, [0037] “formed to contact” is equivalent to folding) so that each of the pair of accommodating parts are symmetrically positioned with respect to one another ([0037]); and the sealing part is disposed along an outer periphery of the pair of accommodating parts except for a periphery of the bending line (see Fig. 3) .
KIM does not teach that each of the pair of the accommodating parts has an indent.
However, KANG teaches a pouch-type battery case (10) having a pair of accommodating parts (111, 112), each having an indent (See Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize the interchangeability of the two solutions in the field of pouch-type battery case design.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the single indent design of KIM with the two-indent design of KANG because doing so would amount to no more than the substitution of known structures for housing electrode bodies with a reasonable chance of success.
Additionally, claim 3 is unpatentable KIM in absence of this modification because the modification would merely constitute a change of form or shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of KIM are explained in the 102(a)(1) rejections above.
KIM additionally teaches a width of the cover member is greater than a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction,
KIM does not teach a width of the cover member is dimensioned to correspond to a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction, wherein the width of the cover member extends along the stacking direction of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3). KIM does not teach that the cover member has an I-shape and is located between the at least one thickness side and the pouch-type battery case.
However, KANG teaches a pouch-type secondary battery (20) with a cover member (190) which is formed with a width of the cover member being greater than a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 2). KANG teaches the cover member is provided to prevent the case (110) from wrinkling [0067] and to reduce the amount of electrolyte needed [0068]. KANG shows in Fig. 6 an alternative embodiment of the cover member (290 here) where a component of the cover member (293) which has an I shape (note the parts which extend in a stacking direction on either side of the electrode assembly 150, and the portion that is more flush with 150, forming the I shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify the cover member of KIM to have the geometry of the cover member of KANG in order to achieve the benefit of reducing the amount of electrolyte needed and preventing wrinkling of the case during assembly. This modification will be referred to as Modified KIM.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of KIM are explained in the 102(a)(1) rejections above.
KIM additionally teaches a width of the cover member is greater than a length of a thickness of the electrode assembly in the stacking direction.
KIM does not teach the cover member is configured to be bent at both ends of the cover member, so as to form a U-shape surrounding the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly, and so as to be positioned between the at least one thickness side and the pouch-type battery case.
However, Modified KIM, as explained in the rejection of claim 8, teaches the part of the cover member which has an I shape (293) also has a U-shape when viewed looking down at S1 (See Fig. 7).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Modified KIM.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17792368 (Reference) in view of US-20040142236-A1, KIM. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons provided in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
FULL REFERENCE CLAIM 1:
A battery cell, comprising: at least two battery units, each including a plurality of electrode leads, an electrode assembly, an electrolyte solution and an inner pouch in which the electrode assembly and the electrolyte solution are received, wherein at least one of the plurality of electrode leads of a first battery unit of the at least two battery units is inserted into a second battery unit of the at least two battery units and electrically connected to the electrode assembly of the second battery unit; and an outer pouch including an upper cover, a lower cover, and a bending portion, the lower cover including at least two receiving portions receiving the at least two battery units, respectively, wherein the bending portion is located between the at least two receiving portions, and a part of the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads is disposed in the bending portion, wherein the bending portion has a sealing region where the upper cover and the lower cover are attached to each other and is sealed, and a non-sealing region where the upper cover and the lower cover are not sealed, wherein the bending portion is configured to bend at the sealing region and the non- sealing region, and wherein the inner pouch of the first battery unit and the inner pouch of the second battery unit includes a discontinuity at the bending portion so that the inner pouch of the first battery unit is physically spaced apart from the inner pouch of the second battery unit at the bending portion to define a gap.
Instant
Reference
A pouch-type secondary comprising:
A battery cell, inner pouch (…)
a pouch-type battery case;
(…) and an outer pouch including an upper cover, a lower cover (…)
a sealing part configured to be heat-sealed in a state of accommodating
a sealing region where the upper cover and the lower cover are attached to each other and is sealed
While the sealing region of the Reference isn’t “configured to be heat-sealed”, heat sealing a battery is a known method in the art, as shown by KIM ([0037]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat seal the battery case of the reference. Additionally, the Reference application mentions the N region of the outer pouch lacks the effects of thermal welding, implying that the S region of the outer pouch requires thermal welding in the sealing process [0067].
an electrode assembly; and
an electrode assembly
a cover member positioned between an at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly and the pouch-type battery case, wherein the cover member is disposed on the at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly, wherein the at least one thickness side extends in a stacking direction of the electrode assembly.
an inner pouch in which the electrode assembly and the electrolyte solution are received,
While the inner pouch of the reference isn’t explicitly stated be placed between the one thickness side of the electrode assembly extending in the stacking direction, the inner pouch completely encapsulates the electrode assembly of the reference. This would mean that the inner pouch would necessarily be positioned between an at least one thickness side of the electrode assembly, meaning the reference anticipates this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights