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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20150000117 A1) in view of Lim (US 20180047950 A1) in view of Lim ‘807 (US 20180261807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a sealing device for a pouch-type battery comprising (See Fig. 7):
an upper sealing block (100) having a two-stage upper sealing groove (2 right most steps shown in Fig. 7) the two-stage upper sealing groove including a first upper step (right most step) configured to form a first surface of the pouch-type battery case and a second upper step (middle step) disposed between the first upper step (right most step) and a lower sealing block (200, see Fig. 7); and
the lower sealing block (200, see Fig. 7) having a two-stage lower sealing groove, the two-stage lower sealing groove including a first lower step (right most step) configured to form a second surface of the pouch-type battery case and a second lower step (middle step) disposed between the first lower step (right most step) and the upper sealing block (100),
wherein the upper sealing block (100) is configured to contact a first surface (top surface of an electrode lead sealing part of the pouch-type battery, and the lower sealing block (200) is configured to contact a second surface of the electrode lead sealing part (please see Fig. 1, seal shown in Fig. 7 will go around portions of 400, [0046]) of the pouch-type battery, wherein the lower sealing block is spaced a part from and facing the upper sealing block.
However, Cho does not disclose that the upper sealing block grooves and lower sealing block groove satisfy the Condition 1 wherein
[Condition 1]
6.5% ≤ (B2-B1)/B1 x100≤ 15%
in which B1 denotes an average depth difference between the first upper step and the second upper step in the upper sealing block, and B2 denotes an average depth difference between the first lower step and the second lower step in the lower sealing block.
Cho does disclose a step height and/or a width between steps for each step may be equal and may differ according to necessity ([0072]) and discloses that on the block (jig) a portion having a high step has a greater pressure applying depth than a portion having a low step ([0066]).
Lim discloses that there can be a plurality of second upper steps (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 and claim 1, two leads therefore multiple steps around each lead) with each set surrounding a respective lead wherein the plurality of second upper steps are disposed symmetrically about the first upper step, wherein the plurality of second lower steps are disposed symmetrically about the first lower step. Furthermore, Lim discloses that stepped portions surrounding the electrodes can have dimensions such that the sealing portion around the leads are uniformly formed and sealed completely ([0015]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the step geometry of the upper versus the lower jig of Cho such that a plurality of second upper steps are disposed symmetrically about the first upper step, and a plurality of second lower steps are disposed symmetrically about the first lower step as disclosed by Lim because Lim discloses that the steps set up symmetrically allow for sealing portion around the leads are uniformly formed and sealed completely.
Lim ‘807 discloses a sealing tool and discloses that the steps on a sealing jig can have different heights based on the thicknesses of the sheets that they are sealing (see Fig. 7, steps 201 and 202 height differences ([0043]-[0046]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the step geometry of the upper versus the lower jig of Cho so that the above geometry has steps with heights which meet claimed Condition 1 because doing so will allow for effective embedding of an electrode within the resins as disclosed by Lim and Lim ’807 since the geometry of the jigs is adjustable to result in a sealing portion around the leads are uniformly formed and sealed completely.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Cho discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Cho does not disclose:
wherein the average depth difference B1 between the first upper step and the second upper step is in a range of 200 µm to 280 µm, and wherein the average depth difference B2 between the first lower step and the second lower step is in a range of 220 µm to 320 µm
wherein a difference between an average depth A1 of the second upper step and an average depth A2 of the second lower step is 10 µm or less
wherein the average depth A1 of the second upper step and the average depth A2 of the second lower step are in a range of 40 µm to 100 µm
As noted above Lim ’087 that the step heights can be varied according to the thickness of the sealing sheets ([0043]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the step heights of the individual steps of the upper and lower jig of modified Cho to have the claimed dimensions because the thickness of the resins can vary and as disclosed by Lim ‘087 the step heights can be varied according to sheet thickness.
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Cho discloses wherein the upper and lower sealing blocks are configured to press and heat the electrode lead sealing part of the pouch-type battery from both sides thereof ([0012][0025]).
However, Cho does not disclose wherein a heating temperature is in a range of 110 °C to 200 °C
Lim discloses that heat applied to the sealing portion may be maintained at 25-500° C. When the temperature is below 25°C, the sealing may not be achieved sufficiently and when the temperature is above 500°C, the pouch itself may be damaged by the heat [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sealing temperature of Cho to be within the range claimed because one would want to be able to effectively seal the sealing portions which will depend on the materials of the sealing portions and not damage the pouch as disclosed by Lim.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20180047950 A1) in view of Lim ‘807 (US 20180261807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a sealing device for a pouch-type battery comprising (See Fig. 4):
an upper sealing block (141 see Fig. 9) having a two-stage upper sealing groove (multiple steps shown in Figs. 9) the two-stage upper sealing groove including a first upper step (upper most step) configured to form a first surface of the pouch-type battery case and a plurality of second upper steps (see Fig. 9 and claim 1, wherein each lead is surrounded by the stepped structure and as shown in Fig. 4 two leads can be present ) disposed between the first upper step (right most step) and a lower sealing block (142, see Fig. 9); and
the lower sealing block (141, see Fig. 9) having a two-stage lower sealing groove (multiple steps shown in Figs. 9), the two-stage lower sealing groove including a first lower step (lower most step) configured to form a second surface of the pouch-type battery case and a plurality of second lower steps (see Fig. 9 and claim 1, wherein each lead is surrounded by the stepped structure and as shown in Fig. 4 two leads can be present) disposed between the first lower step (lower most step) and the upper sealing block (141),
wherein the upper sealing block (141) is configured to contact a first surface (top surface) of an electrode lead sealing part (118) of the pouch-type battery, and the lower sealing block (142) is configured to contact a second surface of the electrode lead sealing part (bottom surface of opposing 118) of the pouch-type battery, wherein the lower sealing block is spaced apart from and facing the upper sealing block.
However, Lim does not disclose that the upper sealing block grooves and lower sealing block groove satisfy the Condition 1 wherein
[Condition 1]
6.5% ≤ (B2-B1)/B1 x100≤ 15%
in which B1 denotes an average depth difference between the first upper step and the second upper step in the upper sealing block, and B2 denotes an average depth difference between the first lower step and the second lower step in the lower sealing block.
Lim discloses that there can be a plurality of second upper steps (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 and claim 1, two leads therefore multiple steps around each lead) with each set surrounding a respective lead wherein the plurality of second upper steps are disposed symmetrically about the first upper step, wherein the plurality of second lower steps are disposed symmetrically about the first lower step. Furthermore, Lim discloses that
stepped portions surrounding the electrodes can have dimensions such that the sealing portion around the leads are uniformly formed and sealed completely ([0015]-[0023]).
Lim ‘807 discloses a sealing tool and discloses that the steps on a sealing jig can have different heights based on the thicknesses of the sheets that they are sealing (see Fig. 7, steps 201 and 202 height differences ([0043]-[0046]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the step geometry of the upper versus the lower jig of Lim so that the above geometry has steps with heights which meet claimed Condition 1 because doing so will allow for effective embedding of an electrode within the resins as disclosed by Lim’ 807 since the geometry of the jigs is adjustable to result in a sealing portion around the leads are uniformly formed and sealed completely.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Lim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Lim does not disclose:
wherein the average depth difference B1 between the first upper step and the second upper step is in a range of 200 µm to 280 µm, and wherein the average depth difference B2 between the first lower step and the second lower step is in a range of 220 µm to 320 µm
wherein a difference between an average depth A1 of the second upper step and an average depth A2 of the second lower step is 10 µm or less
wherein the average depth A1 of the second upper step and the average depth A2 of the second lower step are in a range of 40 µm to 100 µm
As noted above Lim ’807 that the step heights can be varied according to the thickness of the sealing sheets ([0043]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the step heights of the individual steps of the upper and lower jig of modified Lim to have the claimed dimensions because the thickness of the resins can vary and as disclosed by Lim ’807 the step heights can be varied according to sheet thickness.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lim does not disclose wherein a heating temperature is in a range of 110 °C to 200 °C
Lim discloses that heat applied to the sealing portion may be maintained at 25-500° C. When the temperature is below 25°C, the sealing may not be achieved sufficiently and when the temperature is above 500°C, the pouch itself may be damaged by the heat [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sealing temperature of Lim to be within the range claimed because one would want to be able to effectively seal the sealing portions which will depend on the materials of the sealing portions and not damage the pouch as disclosed by Lim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Cho fails to teach a sealing device "wherein the upper sealing block is configured to contact a first surface of an electrode lead sealing part of the pouch- type battery, and the lower sealing block is configured to contact a second surface of the electrode lead sealing part of the pouch-type battery." Applicant argues that Cho only briefly mentions leads in [0006] without mentioning how they are sealed and furthermore the apparatus is directed to sealing the pouch case that does not include the lead sealing part, as shown in FIG. 1 of Cho below.
Cho discloses in FIG. 10a method of sealing the pouch case([0085]-[0088]). The electrode assembly is supplied before step S130 which uses the compression jigs ([0088]). The electrode assembly is equipped with a cathode tab extending from the cathode plate and an anode tab extending from the anode plate (see [0005]). Therefore, the sealing block will contact a first surface of an electrode lead sealing part of the pouch-type battery, and the lower sealing block is configured to contact a second surface of the electrode lead sealing part of the pouch-type battery. For the battery pouch to be sealed necessarily the electrode assembly which extends from inside the pouch portion shown in Fig. 1 to outside the pouch will also have to be sealed by sealing the portions around the electrode assembly which extends from inside to outside of pouch and therefore will be pressed by jigs which comprise steps as described by Cho.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
