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 .
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inner lateral surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 5, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 10-2008-0038465 A, hereinafter Park).
Re Claim 1. Park teaches a lithium secondary battery (Fig. 3 & 4, P4) comprising:
an electrode assembly (item 130); and
a pouch (item 140) in which the electrode assembly is housed, wherein the pouch comprises:
a housing portion (item 144) configured to house the electrode assembly;
a peripheral portion (item 180) around the housing portion; and
a coating portion (item 150) formed along inner sidewalls of the housing portion which surround the electrode assembly along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3 & 4), the coating portion being spaced apart from a side portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 2. Park teaches wherein the pouch comprises a terrace region (Fig. 3, a space between items 130 & 150 on top and bottom) defined by a separation space between the coating portion and the side portion of the electrode assembly.
Re Claim 5. Park teaches wherein the housing portion further comprises a central surface (Fig. 4, items 142 & 144) facing the electrode assembly in the thickness direction thereof, and the coating portion is formed on the inner lateral surface of the housing portion and is not formed on the central surface (Fig. 3 & 4).
Re Claim 6. Park teaches wherein the peripheral portion comprises a sealing surface (Fig. 4, item 180), and the coating portion is not formed on the sealing surface (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 9. Park teaches wherein the pouch has a laminate structure comprising a sealant layer (a resin sealant layer), a metal layer (a metal blocking layer) and a coating layer (a resin outer layer) (P3 & 4).
Re Claim 10. Park teaches wherein the sealant layer includes a polyolefin resin, the metal layer includes aluminum, and the coating layer includes nylon (P3 & 4).
Re Claim 11. Park does not expressly teach that the coating portion has a greater tensile strength than a tensile strength of the sealant layer.
However, since Park and the claimed battery employ substantially similar components and materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the coating portion having a greater tensile strength than a tensile strength of the sealant layer) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Park. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
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.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Park fails to specifically teach that (re Claim 3) a ratio of an average width of the terrace region in a long-axis direction to a long-axis length of the housing portion is 1/5 to 1/50, and (re Claim 4) a ratio of an average thickness of the coating portion to an average thickness of the pouch is 1/10 to 1/50.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Park to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum ratio of an average width of the terrace region in a long-axis direction to a long-axis length of the housing portion and the optimum ratio of an average thickness of the coating portion to an average thickness of the pouch, which provide both effective protection to the battery and portability.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0393452 A1, hereinafter Kim).
The teachings of Park have been discussed above.
Re Claim 7. Park further teaches wherein the housing portion comprises a first housing portion (Fig. 4, item 142) and a second housing portion (item 144) which face each other, but fails to specifically teach that the peripheral portion further comprises a folding surface which divides the first housing portion and the second housing portion.
The invention of Kim encompasses pouch case and secondary battery. Kim teaches that housing portion (Fig. 1, item 100) comprises a first housing portion (item 110) and a second housing portion (item 120) which face each other, wherein that the peripheral portion (item 150) further comprises a folding surface (item 130) which divides the first housing portion and the second housing portion.
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Park to employ a folding surface in the peripheral portion to produce the first and second housing portions as the same time.
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein the coating portion is not formed on the folding surface (Park, Fig. 3 & 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Park addresses the new limitations.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights