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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 18/326,000 to Jeong et al., assigned to SK ON Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea, filed 05/31/2023, and published as U.S. PG Publication 2023/0411750 on 12/21/2023 is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and claim amendment filed 07/06/2026. It is also in response to information disclosure statement, IDS filed 08/05/2026. Applicant’s response is fully considered.
Status of the Claims
In the response filed om 07/06/2026 applicant has amended claim 1, which now recites the newly added limitation, “…wherein the repeating patterns are arranged on the electrode tab, and arranged at a lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode tab is excluded.”. Claim 4 is also amended to recite the newly added limitation of the sealing film, “.. and disposed under the lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode tab is excluded.”.
The status of the claims stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 4
Original 2-3, 5-8
4.3 Withdrawn 9-16
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in this application. Claims 9-16 have been withdrawn for being non-elected claims, and claims 1-8 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2026 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Withdrawal of Objection to the Drawing
In view of applicant’s clarification regarding the objection to drawing in Fig. 5,6 having the reference number 127 and 129 being revered has been withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 102a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0207933) presented in the previous non-final Office action dated 04/06/2026 have been overcome by the amendment of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration the claims are now rejected under 103 over the previously used reference of Lee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0207933) as follows in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0207933)
Regarding Claim 1 Lee discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 110 to which an electrode lead 111 is bonded (Lee paragraph 0008), a pouch comprising an accommodation part configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (Lee paragraph 0008), the pouch is considered equivalent to the exterior material accommodating the electrode assembly, and in which a front end of the electrode lead is withdrawn to the outside (Lee paragraph 0008), the electrode lead is considered equivalent to the claimed electrode tab.
Lee discloses the pouch has a sealing part configured to seal the accommodation part (Lee paragraph 0008). The accommodation part 121 accommodating the electrode assembly is formed at a center of the pouch 120, and a sealing part 122 sealing the accommodation part 121 is formed on an edge of the accommodation part 121 (Lee Fig. 2, paragraph 0041), equivalent to the sealing portion formed around the electrode assembly.
Lee discloses the sealing portion comprise an electrode lead sealing portion, (Lee Fig. 2) the electrode lead is equivalent to the electrode tab. Thus, the sealing portion 122 has a tab sealing potion 140 at an area where the electrode lead 111 is drawn out (Lee Fig. 2). Lee discloses the electrode lead sealing portion is patterned (Lee paragraph 0008), or has a pattern means 140 (Lee Fig. 2, paragraph 0048).
Lee is silent that the patterned portion is arranged at a lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode tab is excluded. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have increased the size of the patterned portion and made it also extend to the lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion to enhance and increase the sealing force around the tab sealing portion in the lateral side of the electrode lead. Such a modification is considered to be an engineering choice and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill and would have required only increase in the size of the patterned means140 towards the lateral side, and according to the MPEP a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 IV)
Regarding claim 2 the electrode lead sealing portion, equivalent to the tab sealing portion, has patterns 140 that are repeatedly arranged long portions (Lee Fig. 3) considered equivalent to the grid pattern repeatedly arranged.
Regarding claim 3 Lee discloses the sealing part may have a structure in which a resin layer, a metal layer, and an insulating layer are sequentially stacked, and in the sealing pattern layer, the entire resin layer, metal layer, and insulating layer may be patterned into the sealing concave part and the sealing convex part (Lee paragraph 0012); thus, the convex resin layer is accommodated onto the metal concave layer, considered equivalent to the resin fling portion formed between the grid portion.
Regarding claim 4 Lee discloses an electrode lead film 130 disposed between the electrode lead 111 and the sealing portion 122 of the pouch 120 (Lee Fig. 3, paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to have extended the tab sealing film to the lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode is excluded to increase and enhance the sealing force of the electrode lead. Such a modification is only increase in the size of a component and accruing to the MPEP a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 IV)
Regarding claim 5 Lee discloses the resin layer is bonded to the lead film 130 (Lee paragraph 0012) considered equivalent to the sealing film accommodated in the resin filling portion.
Regarding claim 6 Lee discloses the sealing portion 122 is formed at an end portion wherein the electrode lead, equivalent to the electrode tab, is drawn out, and side sealing portion formed on the lateral side of the pouch, considered equivalent to the exterior material, where the electrode tab is not drawn out, and the side portion has not the repeating portion formed on the electrode lead sealing portion (Lee Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7 the electrode lead sealing portion, equivalent to the end sealing portion, comprise the tab sealing portion where the tab overlaps the sealing portion, and a sealing portion, such as between the two tabs, wherein there is not the repeating pattern 140 (Lee Fig. 2) considered equivalent to the margin sealing portion.
Regarding claim 8 Lee disclose the electrode lead, equivalent to the electrode tab, sealing portion has an upper tab sealing portion and a lower lab sealing portion (shaded portion in Fig. 1) with the electrode tab interposed between, and where each of the upper tab sealing portion and the lower tab sealing portion has the repeating pattern (Lee Fig. 1, 2).
Response to Argument
In the response filed on 07/06/2026 applicant has amended claim 1 to include the new limitation, “…wherein the repeating patterns are arranged on the electrode tab, and arranged at a lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode tab is excluded.”. Claim 4 has also been similarly amended and the tab sealing film is also disposed under the lateral side portion of the tab sealing portion from which the electrode tab is excluded.
Applicant provides further clarification of the drawings in Fig. 5 and 6 (Remarks page 6,-7). As noted above in view of applicant’s clarification the objection to the drawings presented in the previous non-final Office action is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims 1-8 under 102(a)(1) over the reference of Lee et al. (U.S. PG Pub. 22302079330) applicant argues that the reference of Lee does not anticipate amended claim 1 since Lee does not disclose the newly added limitation and refers to Fig. 1, 6, 7 of the instant application and Fig 1 and 4 of Lee (Remarks page 8-11). Applicant argues that the pattern means 140 of Lee are formed only on the electrode lead 111 and is not distributed to an outer region from the electrode lead, and it does not meet the newly added limitation to claim1.
Examiner notes as presented above in this Office action that the amendment of claim 1 and 4 overcomes the rejection of the claims 1-8 under 102(a)(1) over the reference of Lee. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Upon further consideration the claims are now rejected under 103 over the same reference of Lee and that increasing the size of the pattern portion of claim 1 to increase and enhance the bonding of the electrode lead would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill since it only involves change in a size of a component and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. It would have also been obvious to increase the size of the tab sealing film of claim 4 for the same reason of enhancing the bonding force of the electrode lead. Therefore, the disclosure of Lee renders the claimed invention obvious. This Office action is made final.
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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights