DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 5/26/2026:
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 11-12 have been amended, and Claim 13 is newly added.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained and are repeated below or are modified when the claim language was modified.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claim 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han US PG Publication 2015/0113796 in view of Chun US PG Publication 2020/0227788.
Regarding Claim 1, Han discloses a method of manufacturing a curved secondary battery 100 having a target radius of curvature (para 0048), the method comprising incorporating an electrode assembly 110 including a cathode (positive electrode plate) 112, an anode (negative electrode plate) 114, and a separator 116 interposed therebetween into a battery case (pouch) 120 (paras 0038-0039) together with an electrolyte (para 0046) to manufacture a secondary battery, subjecting the secondary battery 100 to a first activation (pre-charging, para 0053), subjecting the secondary battery 100 to a first hot press (step S20) so that the secondary battery has a first radius of curvature (paras 0054-0065), subjecting the secondary battery 100 to a second hot press so that the secondary battery has a second radius of curvature (paras 0069-0077) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-5 and paras 0038-0039, 0046-0048, and 0053-0077). Han fails to specifically disclose degassing the secondary battery after the first activation and subjecting the secondary battery to a second activation after the first hot press. However, in the same field of endeavor of forming a battery using hot pressing, Chun discloses that battery activation and charging steps include gas formation and that gas formed in initial activation should be removed via a degassing step (para 0086), and that after initial activation (charging/formation steps), removing gas that has been formed via degassing steps, and carrying out secondary aging and secondary formation steps such as a secondary charge/discharge process to improve battery capacity and performance, and more importantly to reach a set output voltage of the battery (see paras 0079-0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the method of Han such that the method includes degassing the secondary battery after the first activation and subjecting the secondary battery to a second activation after the first hot press because Chun teaches that this helps to remove gas formed in initial activation steps and because secondary formation (activation) processes provide a way to set the output voltage of the battery. Although Han modified by Chun does not specifically recite that the second hot press is carried out after the second activation step so that the secondary battery has the second radius of curvature, the hot pressing provides shape to the battery, and so the skilled artisan would find it obvious to ensure that the final shape of the battery is determined by the final hot press step such that all activation steps would be carried out before said second hot press step. The mere rearrangement of parts or steps, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Han fails to specifically disclose wherein the first activation step includes at least one charging and discharging process. However, Chun teaches that battery activation/aging by initial charging includes natural discharge process (para 0082) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to allow the battery of Han and Chun to discharge after the initial charging process since Chun teaches that this is a step that is part of the beneficial construction of the battery. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Han modified by Chun does not specifically describe the at least one charging and discharging process being performed at least twice or that the second active step includes a first charging process, a first discharging process, and a second charging process. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to perform the at least one charging and discharging process at least twice for the first and second activation steps (which would include charging, discharging, charging, and discharging again) in order to ensure e.g. that all of the gas has been generated prior to any needed additional, final activation and pressing steps of Han and Chun so that effective degassing can take place. The mere duplication of parts (or steps), without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Han discloses in para 0008 that the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature and so the second radius of curvature (provided by performing the second hot press) is less than the first radius of curvature. Han modified by Chun fails to specifically disclose wherein the first hot press is performed such that the first radius of curvature is equal to the target radius of curvature or wherein the second hot press is performed such that the second radius of curvature is 2 to 8% less than the target radius of curvature. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the first and second radiii of curvature such that the first radius is the same as the target radius and that the second radius is is 2 to 8% less than less than the target radius in order to allow the finally pressed battery to recover part of the original shape after final pressing since Han teaches in para 0069 that this is a needed part of the process, and the determination of the first and second radii of curvature are standard parameters of design that the skilled artisan would choose to best fit the need of the battery. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 9, Han teaches that the first hot press is performed at about 50 °C to about 80 °C, which overlaps the claimed range of 70 °C to 90 °C, and for about 3 to about 30 seconds using a hot press jig, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 10 seconds (paras 0059 and 0063). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Regarding Claim 11, Han teaches that the method further comprises cooling the secondary battery after the second hot press step (para 0078).
Regarding Claim 12, Han modified by Chun fails to specifically disclose that in the cooling, a curve of the secondary battery is increased to have the target radius of curvature. However, since Chun teaches the benefit of restoring the radius of curvature to have a curvature radius of about 25R (paras 0090-0091) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the method of Han and Chun such that in the cooling, a curve of the secondary battery is increased to have the target radius of curvature because the target radius of curvature is the ultimate goal (shape-wise) and the final cooling step (after hot press) would have to have the desired final shape since no more pressing steps are involved. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding Claim 13, Han discloses in para 0008 that the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature and so the second radius of curvature (provided by performing the second hot press) is less than the first radius of curvature. Han modified by Chun fails to specifically disclose wherein the first hot press is performed such that the first radius of curvature is equal to the target radius of curvature or wherein the second hot press is performed such that the second radius of curvature is 2 to 8% less than the target radius of curvature. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the first and second radiii of curvature such that the first radius is the same as the target radius and that the second radius is is 2 to 8% less than less than the target radius in order to allow the finally pressed battery to increase its radius to attain the target radius after final pressing since Han teaches in para 0069 that a larger radius is restored and also because Chun teaches the benefit of restoring the radius of curvature to have a curvature radius of about 25R (paras 0090-0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the method of Han and Chun such that in the cooling, a curve of the secondary battery is increased to have the target radius of curvature because the target radius of curvature is the ultimate goal (shape-wise) and the final cooling step (after hot press) would have to have the desired final shape since no more pressing steps are involved. this is a needed part of the process, and the determination of the first and second radii of curvature are standard parameters of design that the skilled artisan would choose to best fit the need of the battery. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments directed at claim 1
7. Applicant argues that Han uses a two-step process to achieve the desired battery radius in order to reduce stress and possible damage to the battery and that Han discloses the initial activation step should occur after the secondary shaping operation and so the skilled artisan would not apply the teaching of Chun to arrive at the claimed invention to degas after the first activation step and to perform the second hot press step after a second activation, and therefore, the limitations of Claim 1 are not disclosed or made obvious.
The Office has carefully considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that the Chun provides strong rationale to modify Han in the way described in the rejection above. Chun recites that it is beneficial in setup of a battery to include aging, hot pressing, and gas removal steps (para 0079) before activating (charging/discharging) a battery. Chun’s aging step is carried out to beneficially impregnate electrolyte into the electrode assembly (para 0059), and hot-pressing formation steps follow the aging step which can produce gases (paras 0060-0066). All of these steps are beneficially carried out before activating (charging/discharging) the battery for the first time (para 0071) and can be repeated after the first charging/activation. The Office can find no reason that the skilled artisan would not be capable of taking these recommended steps of Chun and arranging them with the method steps of Han as described in the rejection above to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, such an argument is not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
8. Applicant argues that Claim 12 is not obvious over Han or modified Han because the cooling step of Han occurs in the jig which does not allow for an increase in radius as recited in Claim 12.
The Office has carefully considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that Chun teaches a benefit of restoring the radius of curvature to be about 25R, as explained in the rejection above, which is an increase over radius R. The skilled artisan would be capable of applying this benefit to the method of Han and would find it reasonable to modify the cooling step of Han so that the correct target radius, as taught by Chun, could be reached. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Accordingly, such an argument is not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights