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
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus of manufacture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/24/2026.
Claims 1-4 are examined below.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (PGPUB 2023/0238626) and further in view of Choi et al (PGPUB 2024/0162471).
Dai teaches an electrochemical device including a housing with a body portion that houses an electro assembly and a first seal edge and a second edge [Abstract]. The housing includes a first metal layer stacked together with a first and second polymer layer on either side [0017; 0071-0072]. The sealing step is performed to fuse and sealed [0071-0072, 0076, 0082]. A glue (110) is further used to bond layers together [0076-0084]. A bend (second bend)is made that is less than 90o in the periphery region of the battery casing [Fig 11].
Dai teaches edge folding to utilize a bending step [0108], that comprises a bend location [0065, 0075-0077, 0086-0089], but is silent to teach the specifics of the method of bending such as a specific bending member.
Choi teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a battery cell comprising a body portion having a rigidity and a portion of the sealing portion to be shaped by a molded element [Abstract]. Two walls of a casing material are brought together at the periphery of the casing (10b) and bent by with a bending member (432) [Fig 4]. Choi teaches the bending to be tailorable and capable of being 90o or less [Fig 4; 0056-0064]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the bending the step of Dai to include the bending member as taught by Choi in order to allow a rigid sealing portion of a battery to be molded [0005] such that the volume of the electrode assembly is increased and proper sealing is performed [0022].
For the purposes of examination, the conductive nature of the bending member does not materially narrow the method scope of the instant claim because the manufactured lithium battery does not have a patentably distinguishing feature between a bending member that is conductive or insulative as it does not materially change the battery in any way other than to perform the bending task. The prior art teaches the bending task and therefore teaches all positively recited scope limiting method features of the instant claimed clause.
Instant claim recites “a method…checking conduction between the bending member and the metal layer of the laminate film.” This limitation fails to further limit the scope of the instant claimed method for manufacturing a laminated battery because the claimed step does not produce a patentably distinct result. Since the results of the conduction check are not further utilized in the method for manufacturing, the step merely results in the abstract idea of the system gaining a better sense of itself. Two methods of manufacture, one with the claimed checking step and one without would not result in patentably distinct laminated batteries and therefore the method of manufacture are not patentably distinct.
Claim 2: Dai is silent to teach the bending mechanism.
Choi teaches a bending member to act as a fulcrum member such that it is brought into contact with a valley folding side of the bent portion of the laminated film [Fig 4c-4d]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the bending the step of Dai to include the bending member as taught by Choi in order to allow a rigid sealing portion of a battery to be molded [0005] such that the volume of the electrode assembly is increased and proper sealing is performed [0022].
Claim 3: Dai is silent to teach the bending mechanism.
Choi teaches a bending member to be a roller [0016-0020] such that contact between the bending member and the fused portion, as taught by the material casing of Dai, would conform the periphery and bend. The battery cell (10) is taught to be bent while moving in a predetermined direction [0076]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the bending the step of Dai to include the bending member as taught by Choi in order to allow a rigid sealing portion of a battery to be molded [0005] such that the volume of the electrode assembly is increased and proper sealing is performed [0022].
Claim 4: Dai is silent to teach the bending mechanism.
Choi teaches the bending step to comprise a plurality of bending rolls [Fig 9] that are capable of moving in the direction of the laminated battery and making contact with the portion of the periphery of the battery to bent while the battery is moved [0086-0104]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the bending the step of Dai to include the bending member as taught by Choi in order to allow a rigid sealing portion of a battery to be molded [0005] such that the volume of the electrode assembly is increased and proper sealing is performed [0022].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PGPUB 2012/0019256 teaches an apparatus and method of checking the electrical characteristics of the battery with probes. The application of these probes to test and monitor the function of the battery could be applied to future amendments that impart language that utilize the otherwise abstract idea of self.
Ishikawa (JP 2022-175295) - Ishikawa teaches a fold in an exterior coating body that suppresses damage due to heat generated from the power generating element [Abstract]. A laminated battery is produced with an electrode body [Pg 2 Ln 4-7]. The exterior body (24) covers the electrode body to encapsulate it therein and is made of a laminate film including aluminum sandwiched between resin films [Pg 2 Ln 8-18]. The battery outside is bent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights