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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 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)).
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 6-7 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.
Claims 6 and 7 recites the limitation "the horizontal direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, this term is meant to be “the orthogonal direction” and will be examined as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suh (US 2019/0027714).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Suh discloses a pouch-type battery case configured to accommodate an electrode assembly (see abstract which describes a pouch for a battery), in which electrodes and separators are alternately stacked (in stack 200, see paragraph 54), the pouch-type battery case comprising:
a pair of recess parts (310a and 310b, see Fig. 8(c), each of which has a recessed shape;
a pair of terraces (350, as depicted in Fig. 5) that are disposed around the pair of recess parts (see Fig. 5), wherein, when the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, the pair of terraces are inclined with respect to one another such that the pair of terraces approach one another along a downward direction (this limitation is a conditional limitation that occurs when the battery case is unfolded, as can be seen in Fig. 8(c), the structure of Suh is capable of forming inclinations of the terraces that approach one another in a downward direction); and
a bridge (315) disposed between the pair of recess parts (see Fig. 8(c)) and connecting the pair of recess parts to each other, the bridge having a pair of connection surfaces extending upward from a bottom surface of each of the pair of recess parts (see annotated Fig. 8(c) below which illustrates that the connection surfaces are sloped upward from a bottom where they are connected to the recess parts 310a and 310b), wherein, when the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, the pair of connection surfaces are inclined with respect to one another such that the pair of connection surfaces approach one another along an upward direction (as illustrated in Fig. 8(c)), the upward direction being opposite to the downward direction,
wherein, in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, an angle formed by the pair of terraces is an obtuse angle (while Suh teaches a non-obtuse angle in Fig. 8(c), the same features with respect to the terrace and the bridge would be exhibited if the angle was obtuse). It is also noted that Applicant’s claims of “in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded” or “when the pouch-type battery case is unfolded” are simply operational limitations that define a structure that is present when that operational limitation occurs. As such, the operational limitation (obtuse angle) does not need to be taught by Suh in order for Suh to anticipate the claim, but rather Suh must teach a structure that exhibits such features if/when that operational limitation is performed, which it does.
PNG
media_image1.png
483
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8(c)
Regarding claim 2, Suh further discloses in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, the bottom surfaces of the pair of recess parts are inclined with respect to one another such that the bottom surfaces diverge from one another along the upward direction (such is the case which can be seen in Fig. 8(c) where the recessed parts form a V shaped structure which diverge from each other in an upward direction).
Regarding claim 3, Suh further discloses in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, the angle formed by the pair of terraces is 130 degrees to 170 degrees. This limitation is directed toward a manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The structure of Suh can be operated in such a way that the pouch is opened to a degree in which the terraces form the claimed angle. Regarding limitations recited in claim 3 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 4, Suh further discloses an inner edge (as depicted in annotated Fig. 6 below) connecting an inner circumference of the recess part to the bottom surface of the recess part; and an outer edge (as depicted in annotated Fig. 6 below) connecting an outer circumference of the recess part to the terrace, wherein the inner edge has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to a radius of curvature of the outer edge (see annotated Fig. 6 below which clearly shows a large radius of curvature for the inner edge than the outer edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
226
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claims 5-7, Suh further discloses a distance between the inner edge and the outer edge in an orthogonal direction is 0.35 mm or less, the horizontal direction being perpendicular to the upward and downward directions. It is noted that this horizontal/orthogonal direction is dependent on the angle of the fold. As such, Suh can exhibit a range of distances depending on the angle of the fold. I this case, the inner and outer edge, when the fold angle is 180 degrees is zero as they are only separated by a vertical distance as depicted in Fig. 6. In Suh, when folded with an obtuse angle which is anything between 90 and 180 degrees including 179.9 degrees, Suh will exhibit a distance between these two edges that is less than 0.35mm or the curvature of the outer edge as it can be infinitely close to zero without being zero. In other words, this claim appears to define a structure based on how the structure can be operated. In this case, depending on how the pouch is folded, Suh can indeed teach such a limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Suh further discloses in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, a bending part connecting the pair of terraces to each other and convexly rounded in the downward direction (see annotated Fig. 4 below which illustrates the claimed bending part and the convex/rounded portion is formed when the pouch casing is bent, as depicted in Fig. 8(c)), wherein the bridge further comprises a first connection edge (see annotated Fig. 8(c) above) connecting the pair of connection surfaces to each other and convexly rounded in the upward direction (as depicted in Fig. 8(c)), and a height of a lowermost end of the bending part is greater than or equal to a height of an uppermost end of the first connection edge (Suh does not distinguish between the bending part of the terraces and the bending part where the battery will sit, which is the bridge 315 and is illustrated in Fig. 8(c), as such, these two “bends” have the same structure and therefore equal heights).
PNG
media_image3.png
852
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 9, Suh further discloses in the state in which the pouch-type battery case is unfolded, the bridge further comprises a pair of second connection edges connecting the pair of connection surfaces to the bottom surfaces of the pair of recess parts and convexly rounded in the downward direction (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 8(c) above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Suh, teaches a pouch battery comprising a virtual line that passes through the inner circumferences of the recess part and the inner edge and is perpendicular to the terrace. Suh, however, teaches that the bends/folds of the terrace part are the same bends/folds as the bridge section which would result in the first and second length being equal, rather than the claimed second distance being shorter than the first distance. The prior art neither teaches nor suggests a reason to modify the structure of Suh to arrive at the claimed configuration.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2020/0280044 - Discloses a pouch cell that has a radius of curvature of the inner edge is greater than a radius of curvature of the outer edge, as claimed in claim 4 (see Fig. 6 of US 2020/0280044)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights