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
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to Group II, a nonelected pouch battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/24/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a sealing device, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20150000117 A1) in view of Takabayashi (US 20130093398 A1) in view of Yeo (US 20240092517 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 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]).
Takabayashi discloses that the resin layer on the upper and lower surfaces which form a secondary battery and sealing layers around an electrode can differ in thicknesses distribution (see Fig. 3A, see layer 2d) and discloses that the geometry of layer 2d allows for sufficient embedding of an electrode with the varied surface geometry ([0064]-[0065]).
Yeo discloses a sealing tool (see Fig. 1, 100, 190) for sealing a mixture of resin/metallic sheets (Abstract [0049]) that upper (100) and lower jigs (190) can have varied geometries with respect to one another ([0085]) and that the step heights can be varied according to the thickness of the sealing sheets ([0012][0013]).
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 alternative electrode/resin geometries according to user preferences, as disclosed by Takabayashi and Yeo, and effective embedding of an electrode within the resins.
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 Yeo that the step heights can be varied according to the thickness of the sealing sheets ([0012][0013]).
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 above and below electrodes can vary (See Takabayashi) and as disclosed by Yeo the step heights can be varied according to sheet thickness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20150000117 A1) in view of Takabayashi (US 20130093398 A1) in view of Yeo (US 20240092517 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above and in further view of Lim (US 20180047950 A1).
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.
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 dependent on the materials of the sealing portions and not damage the pouch as disclosed by Lim.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights