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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 12-19) in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II is not directed to an apparatus, but a product and groups I and II share the same geometric parameters and the stated burden is conclusory because it does not identify any concrete additional field of search. This is not found persuasive because a battery is an apparatus; and furthermore, the restriction requirement of 3/12/2026 states that groups I and II are directed to related products. Second, it does not matter if the two groups may share a small overlapping limitation; as explained in the restriction requirement, the inventions have materially different design, modes of operation, function or effect since invention I is a pouch forming device and invention II is a battery. Third, the restriction requirement clearly identifies the groups being classified in different, specific classifications that would require a different field of search resulting in a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0089] refer to pc1, pc2 and pc3 as corner angles, while paragraph [0099] refers to pc1, pc2 and pc3 as corner rounds. The language should be consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “first round” should read --a first round--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 23, “a first round” should read --a first three dimensional round--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-19 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first side wall corner" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second side wall corner" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bottom corner" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a three dimensional type” in lines 23-24. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation and whether it is meant to be a physical structure separate from the first three-dimensional round or a description of the three-dimensional round. If it is meant to be a structure, it is unclear what physical structure is portrayed by a “type”, let alone a “three-dimensional type”. What structure is a “type”? As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a three dimensional type” in line 26. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation and whether it is meant to be a physical structure separate from the first three-dimensional round or a description of the three-dimensional round. If it is meant to be a structure, it is unclear what physical structure is portrayed by a “type”, let alone a “three-dimensional type”. What structure is a “type”? If it is meant to be a structure, it is unclear whether “a three-dimensional type” of line 26 is the same or different as “a three-dimensional type” as recited in lines 23-24 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a three dimensional type” in line 28. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation and whether it is meant to be a physical structure separate from the first three-dimensional round or a description of the three-dimensional round. If it is meant to be a structure, it is unclear what physical structure is portrayed by a “type”, let alone a “three-dimensional type”. What structure is a “type”? If it is meant to be a structure, it is unclear whether “a three-dimensional type” of line 26 is the same or different as “a three-dimensional type” as recited in lines 23-24 of the claim and as recited in line 26 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “a first corner round” in line 4. It is unclear whether “a first corner round” of line 4 is the same or different as “the first corner round” as recited in line 2 of the claim and as recited in claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “a second corner round” in line 4. It is unclear whether “a second corner round” of line 4 is the same or different as “the second corner round” as recited in lines 2-3 of the claim and as recited in claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “a third corner round” in line 5. It is unclear whether “a third corner round” of line 5 is the same or different as “the third corner round” as recited in line 3 of the claim and as recited in claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “a pouch” in line 5. It is unclear whether “a pouch” of line 5 is the same or different as “a pouch” as recited in claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 13 further limits claim 12 which is a rechargeable battery comprising a pouch. It is unclear whether a further pouch of claim 13 is part of the rechargeable battery of claim 12 and whether an electrode assembly of a winding type and an electrode assembly of a stack type are all part of the rechargeable battery of claims 12 and 13. The claims are reciting a single rechargeable battery with a single pouch, and it is unclear how claim 13 is attempting to claim a pouch with electrode assembly of a winding type and stack type as part of that single rechargeable battery comprising a pouch. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0344789).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. discloses a rechargeable battery (title), comprising:
a pouch (figure 2, battery case 10) comprising an outer flange provided on an outside (figure 2, where numeral 10 is pointing, not labeled) and a forming part within the outer flange (figure 2, cup part 100); and
a stack type electrode assembly accommodated in the forming part ([0010]), the forming part comprising:
side walls connected to the outer flange (figure 2, first outer wall 122 and second outer wall 124),
a bottom connected to the side walls with a corner (figure 2, bottom portion 110),
first round at a first corner of a second direction to form a vertex area in the forming part (figure 3, portion 1522 at first corner 132);
a second round at a second corner of a first direction crossing the second direction (figure 3, portion 1522 on second corner 134), and
a third round at a third corner of a third direction crossing the first direction (figure 3, curved portion drawn, but not labeled, on third corner 142);
a first corner round curvedly shaped and at the first side wall corner corresponding to the first round in a diagonal direction of the first corner to form the vertex area (figure 3, corner of wall 124; see marked up figure 3 below);
a second corner round curvedly shaped and at the second side wall corner corresponding to the second round in a diagonal direction of the second corner (figure 3, corner of wall 122; see marked up figure 3 below), and
a third corner round curvedly shaped and at the bottom corner corresponding to the third round in a diagonal direction of the third corner (figure 3, corner of wall 110; see marked up figure 3 below), the vertex area comprising:
a first round connecting the center of the first corner round in a three dimensional type at the center of the first round (figure 3, curve connecting portion 1522 at edge 132 to corner of wall 124; see marked up figure 3 below);
a second three dimensional round connecting the center of the second corner round in a three dimensional type at the center of the second round (figure 3, curve connecting portion 1522 at edge 134 to corner of wall 122; see marked up figure 3 below); and
a third three dimensional round connecting the center of the third round at the center of the third corner round in a three dimensional type (figure 3, curve connecting portion at edge 142 to corner of wall 110; see marked up figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. discloses wherein a first curvature radius of the first corner round, a second curvature radius of the second corner round, and a third curvature radius of the third corner round are larger than a fourth curvature radius of a first corner round, a fifth curvature radius of a second corner round, and a sixth curvature radius of a third corner round of a pouch accommodating an electrode assembly of a winding type to accommodate an electrode assembly of a stack type (compare corner of wall 122 curvature radius, corner of wall 124 curvature radius and corner of wall 110 curvature radius in figure 3 to corner at A1/A4 curvature radius, corner at A2/A4 curvature radius and corner above A3 curvature radius in figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. discloses wherein:
a first length of the first corner round and a second length of the second corner round are the same size (see figure 3, length of the corner of wall 122 is the same size as a length of the corner of wall 124), and
a third length of the third corner round is larger than the first length of the first corner round and the second length of the second corner round (see figure 3, length of corner of wall 110 is greater than the length of the corner of wall 122 and the length of the corner of wall 124).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses wherein:
a first curvature radius of the first corner round and a second curvature radius of the second corner round are the same size (see figure 3, curvature radius of the corner of wall 122 is the same size as a curvature radius of the corner of wall 124), and
a third curvature radius of the third corner round is larger than the first curvature radius of the first corner round and the second curvature radius of the second corner round (see figure 3, curvature radius of corner of wall 110 is greater than the curvature radius of the corner of wall 122 and the curvature radius of the corner of wall 124).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. discloses wherein:
a first length of the first round is greater than a second length of the first corner round (figure 3, length of portion 1522 greater than length of corner of wall 124),
a third length of the second round is greater than a fourth length of the second corner round (figure 3, length of portion 1522 greater than length of corner of wall 122), and
a fifth length of the third round is larger than a sixth length of the third corner round (figure 3, length of portion of edge 142 greater than length of corner of wall 110).
It is noted that where the lengths are measured along the rounds or corner rounds is not specifically pointed out, and as such, the length of the rounds may be at the widest part next to the central portion 1521 and the lengths of the corner rounds may be at the smallest round section of the corner of the walls 122, 124 and 110, and therefore figure 3 would read on the limitations of claim 16 (see alternative marked up figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
584
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. discloses wherein: a first length of the first corner round and a second length of the second corner round are the same size (figure 3, length of corner of wall 122 and 124 same size); and a third length of the third corner round is smaller than the first length of the first corner round and the second length of the second corner round (figure 3, length of corner of wall 110 is smaller than corner of walls 122 and 124 (it is noted that where the lengths are measured along the corner rounds are not specifically pointed out, and therefore, the smallest part of the round of corner of wall 110 may be selected; furthermore, Kim et al. discloses the dimensions may be changed ([0053]; [0056]-[0057]; [0061]-[0064])).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. discloses wherein: a first curvature radius of the first corner round and a second curvature radius of the second corner round are the same size (figure 3, curvature of corner of wall 122 and 124 same size); and a third curvature radius of the third corner round is smaller than the first curvature radius of the first corner round and the second curvature radius of the second corner round (figure 3, curvature of corner of wall 110; [0053]; [0056]-[0057]; [0061]-[0064])
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. discloses wherein:
a first length of the first round is smaller than a second length of the first corner round (figure 3, length of portion 1522 at edge 132 is smaller than length of corner of wall 124),
a third length of the second round is smaller than a fourth length of the second corner round (figure 3, length of portion 1522 at edge 134 is smaller than length of corner of wall 122), and
a fifth length of the third round is smaller than a sixth length of the third corner round (figure 3, length of portion of edge 142 smaller than length of corner of wall 110).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights