DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-28, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 6 have been amended; Claim 5 has been canceled; Claims 1-4 and 6-13 have been added.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the sliding area of the battery cell is an area where an active material layer tapers towards a current collector plate of an electrode of the battery cell.” This phrase does not appear in the specification as filed. The specification refers to the sliding area as having “a smaller thickness value compared with the body area” (¶ 0013), or “may have a thickness slightly lower than that of the body area” (¶ 0052), and elsewhere the auxiliary pressing member is for “eliminating the thickness difference between the body area 12 and the sliding area 14” (¶ 0064) (all citations to PGPUB US 2024/0258559). Elsewhere the sliding area is described as a “a concept including an area where the flatness of the electrode mixture layer is reduced and its peripheral portion in the vicinity of the boundary between the coating portion and the non-coating portion” (¶ 0051). None of these descriptions provide explicit support for a “tapered” area, only a difference in thickness or an undefined roughness, or anti-flatness. If the auxiliary pressing member 140 were meant to eliminate the thickness difference, you would also expect it to be complementarily tapered, but the specification appears to teach just a simple step-difference in height. The phrase has been interpreted broadly in line with the specification as a thickness difference.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 1 requires “the auxiliary pressing member being configured to press a sliding area of a battery cell.” The instant specification describes the “sliding area” as “a concept including an area where the flatness of the electrode mixture layer is reduced and its peripheral portion in the vicinity of the boundary between the coating portion and the non-coating portion” (instant PGPUB US 2024/0258559 at ¶ 0051). This does not appear to be a standard term of art in the battery arts, nor does it appear to have clearly defined metes and bounds, instead being defined loosely according to relative notions of “reduced thickness” and a rough notion of where the sliding area tends to be, such as near the tab. But the relative nature of the term introduces ambiguity into the claim, which is compounded by dependent claims like 8 and 9, which require a specific area% of coverage for the “sliding area.” The term is rejected for lacking a clear definition that would rigidly delimit the claimed “sliding area.” The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 are doubly rejected, for heightening the ambiguity in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent No. 11,372,052 to Kim et al., originally published as WO 2020/105976) in view of Shin (US 2020/0049678 to Shin et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
an activation jig, which is capable of holding a cell during charging and discharging, and a pair of pressing jigs 120 with auxiliary pressing members 140 being configured to press an area near the tab portions of the cells, interpreted to read on “a sliding area” within the meaning of the instant specification, near the terminal tabs and away from the main electrode body
a battery cell located between the pair of pressing jigs 20 (Fig. 3, columns 9-10)
PNG
media_image1.png
288
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not teach:
a pressing pad on opposing surfaces of the pressing jigs to buffer the pressure
the auxiliary pressing members 140 being located on the pressing pad
Shin, however, from the same field of invention, teaches flat buffer pads 300/400 on a cell jig (¶ 0039) that can be made of a buffer material like silicone rubber (¶ 0056). It would have been obvious to provide such a buffer layer between a common steel jig and the cell surface, to protect the cell. Kim teaches protruding step member close to the cell, such that it would have been obvious to provide the auxiliary members 140 between the modified flat buffer pad of Shin and the outer edges of the cell housing, since Shin teaches that the buffer pad protects the electrode from damage, while Kim renders obvious auxiliary pads only around the edge areas in order to smooth out the pressure along areas of the housing with less than thickness. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See also Park (KR 10-1803134, machine English translation provided), which teaches a multi-layer jig, wherein the outermost jig layers are steel, followed by a buffer layer, and then protruding step members of various lengths (¶ 0028), for rendering obvious buffer pads of different thickness.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches:
the auxiliary member 140 providing a protruding step profile toward the battery cell (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches:
the auxiliary pressing members 140 configured to press a portion of the battery cell where an electrode tab and electrode are connected within the sliding area (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches:
a tape or band shape for the pressing members 140 that are parallel to the ends of the jigs (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 6, Shin renders obvious:
pressing pads on both opposing surfaces to protect the cell
It would have been obvious to provide pressing pads on both opposing surfaces to protect the cell from both directions, as disclosed in Shin. It further would have been obvious to provide stepped auxiliary members on both sides, as taught in Kim, depending on the desired terrace geometry: is the terrace in the middle of the cell thickness direction or at one edge? Both were common in the art. A cell with a middle terrace would benefit from an auxiliary step pressing member on both sides, since both sides would be subject to increased stress along the sliding/tab area. See column 10, lines 6-14 of Kim.
Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches:
wherein the auxiliary pressing member is spaced apart from a main body area of the cell, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of that limitation consonant with the instant specification (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claims 8-9, Kim teaches:
a majority of the sliding area being covered, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches:
a synthetic polymer like polyurethane (column 10, lines 58-65), expected to have higher hardness than the silicone rubber of the pressure pads rendered obvious by Shin
It would have been obvious to provide a resin material like that disclosed in Kim, which would have had a higher hardness than the silicone rubbers disclosed in Shin. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Shin renders obvious:
silicone rubber (¶ 0056)
Regarding Claim 12, Kim does not teach:
stainless steel jig members
Stainless steel was a well-known jig material. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard, see Park (KR 10-1803134, machine English translation provided), which teaches a multi-layer jig, wherein the outermost jig layers are steel (¶ 0030).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent No. 11,372,052 to Kim et al., originally published as WO 2020/105976) in view of Shin (US 2020/0049678 to Shin et al.), and in further view of Kusumoto (JP 2009-054376 to Kusomoto et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim does not explicitly teach:
a protective paper located between the pressing pad and the auxiliary pressing member
Kusomoto, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a pressing jig for a battery cell, teaches providing a protective sheet 12 between the battery cell to be pressed and the pressing surfaces of the jig (p. 4). It would have been obvious to provide such protective sheets to keep the jig clean of debris and dirt and prevent transfer to new battery cells. It further would have been obvious to provide the sheet between the pressing surface of the jig (i.e. the buffer layer of Shin) and the auxiliary pressing member taught in Kim, in order to prevent a flat surface and minimize crinkles/wrinkles in the provided paper. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-07-28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are now rejected over § 112 for new matter and for indefiniteness. Applicant argues that Kim only teaches the auxiliary pads while Shin only teaches a flat pressing pad, so none of the prior art teaches both. One cannot show nonobviousness, however, by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights