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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both “protrusion” and “folded protrusion”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, it is suggested to amend “is lifted” to - -is configured to be lifted- -.
In claim 7, line 5, it is suggested to amend “which moves” to - -configured to move- -.
In claim 9, line 5, it is suggested to amend “applying heat” to - -configured to apply heat- -.
In claim 10, line 2, it is suggested to amend “is moved” to - -is configured to move- -.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “a preforming portion forming a folding groove in a portion of a protrusion” and subsequently recites “ folding the protrusion” and “folded protrusion”. It is not clear what is required by these limitations. It is not clear if the protrusion has undergone some folding operation that is not clearly recited. Is the folding portion configured to fold the protrusion or the protrusion is already folded and part of the structural configuration of the apparatus (i.e., pre folded)? Are these terms referring to the same protrusion or are they separate structural elements. Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0098751).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a pouch-type rechargeable battery (paragraph [0002]) , the apparatus comprising:
a preforming portion forming a folding groove (i.e., a line forming unit) (see figure 4 depicting groove 124A) (paragraph [0063]) in a portion of a protrusion (i.e., wing – w) of the pouch-type rechargeable battery (paragraph [0063]) (see figure 4);
a folding portion (i.e., pre-folding line) (see figure 6) disposed on a rear end of the preforming portion and folding the protrusion along the folding groove (paragraph [0065]);
a rolling portion (i.e., lower roller – 212B) disposed on a rear end of the folding portion and pressing the folded protrusion (see figures 12A-12D) (paragraph [0077]); and
a pressing portion (i.e., upper roller – 211B) disposed on a rear end of the rolling portion and fixing the folded protrusion (see figures 12A-12B) (paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the rolling portion includes, a roller (i.e., lower roller – 211B) (paragraph [0074]) pressing the folded protrusion (see figures 8A-8D); and a moving frame (see figures 8A-8D) (paragraph [0074]). As to the limitation “the roller is rotatably installed and which moves the roller in a longitudinal direction of the pouch-type rechargeable battery”, such limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114(I)). It is submitted that the apparatus of Kim possess the requisite claimed structure (i.e., roller and moving frame), such that it would necessarily follow that the apparatus would be capable of performing the recited functionality.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the roller is disposed to be inclined with respect to a thickness direction of the pouch-type rechargeable battery (i.e., angle of roller may be 0° or more) (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the pressing portion includes, a fixing bar fixing a terrace portion of the pouch-type rechargeable battery(see figures 8A-8D); and a pressing member (110A) spaced apart from the fixing bar and applying heat and pressure to the folded protrusion (paragraph [0074], [0063]).
PNG
media_image2.png
422
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the pressing member is in contact with the folded protrusion and is moved to be spaced apart from the protrusion (see figure 4) (paragraph [0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0098751).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the roller has an inclination angle of 0 to 90° (paragraph [0074]). It is noted that Kim differ in the exact same inclination range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the inclination range of Kim overlap the instant claimed inclination and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claims 2-3
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance. The prior art fails to teach the limitations as recited in claims 2-3 in combination with the features of claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182119). Otohata teaches a battery with a folded protrusion (paragraph [0086]) (see figure 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights