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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted July 16, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2, 3, 11, and 13 are cancelled and claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are amended, resulting in claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 14-18 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure does not provide support for the limitation “a depth of the second dent in the second direction is less than a thickness of the first dent in the second direction”. The instant specification recites “the second dent has a depth only enough to accommodate the electrical connector”, which is not the same scope as “a depth of the second dent in the second direction is less than a thickness of the first dent in the second direction”.
Claims 4-10, 12, and 14-18 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2013/0196194 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a flexible battery (Park Fig. 9D) comprising:
a plurality of electrode assemblies (20a, 20b Park Fig. 9D), wherein each electrode assembly comprises a cathode electrode plate, an anode electrode plate, and a separator disposed between the cathode electrode plate and the anode electrode plate (Park [54])
an electrical connector (420 and 430 taken together, Park Fig. 9D), wherein two end terminals (420, 430 Park Fig. 9D) of the electrical connector are respectively electrically connected to two adjacent electrode assemblies of the plurality of electrode assemblies
elastic insulation members, wherein the elastic insulation members are disposed at the two end terminals of the electrical connector (250b, Park Fig. 9D)
a gap provided between the elastic insulation members and the two adjacent electrode assemblies (space portion 21, Park Fig. 9D)
a package bag (410, Park Fig. 9D), wherein the plurality of electrode assemblies, the electrical connector, and the elastic insulation members are disposed in the package bag (Park Fig. 9D)
the package bag (410, Park Fig. 9D) being provided with a first dent accommodating the plurality of electrode assemblies and the elastic insulation members (recessed portion of 410, Park Fig. 9D).
the package bag (410, Park Fig. 9D) being provided with a second dent accommodating the electrical connector (area where the electrode tabs 420b and 430b exit the casing 410, Park Fig. 9A), wherein the electrical connector is movable within the second dent (the electrical connector is capable of moving within the second dent, for example if the structure is bent).
an extending direction of the electrical connector is a first direction and a thickness direction of each electrode assembly is a second direction (Park Fig. 9D)
Park does not explicitly teach a depth of the second dent in the second direction being less than a thickness of the first dent in the second direction. The first dent of Park holds the electrode assemblies, whereas the second dent accommodates the electrode tabs. Park further teaches that it is suitable for the main body and cover of the casing to be thermally bonded and “adhered closely to each other” at a location that corresponds to the location of the second dent (Park [56]). Since the electrical connectors are depicted to be both located between the electrode assemblies and pass through the electrode assemblies and exit the package bag, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the electrode assembly has a greater thickness than the electrode tabs (420b and 430b, Park Fig. 9D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery of Park to have a first dent with a larger depth than a thickness of the second dent in order to achieve the predictable result of electrode assemblies and electrical connectors encased in a battery casing.
The recitation of "flexible battery" in claim 1 can be broadly construed as Applicant has not set forth a definition in the Specification and determining whether something is flexible is at least partially influenced by the user and difference of opinion. Additionally, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the claimed structure unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from that of the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park further teaches the plurality of electrode assemblies connected in parallel by using the electrical connector (Park [76]).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park further teaches the electrode assembly being a wound structure or a laminated structure (Park Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Claim 6 is a product-by-process claim (die-cutting). Although Park does not teach the electrical connector being integrally formed with a cathode electrode plate or an anode electrode plate by die-cutting, it is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park is silent to the width of the gap. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the gap to include the claimed range. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Additionally, it is noted that the claimed range (“at least 0.5 mm”) is broad and open-ended as there is no upper limit.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park further teaches the elastic insulation members (250b, Park Fig. 9D; Fig. 6A and 6B shown below) being disposed in pairs on two surfaces of the electrical connector (420 and 430) (Park Fig. 9D).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park further teaches the elastic insulation members (250b) being disposed on one surface of the electrical connector (420 and 430) (Park Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park does not explicitly teach an embodiment of the flexible battery in an electric apparatus. However, Park teaches that the secondary battery of their invention is used in an electric apparatus (electronic device, Park [50]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electric apparatus comprising the flexible battery according to claim 1 as a power source in order to obtain an electric apparatus capable of performing a desired electrical function.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park further teaches the package bag (410, Park Fig. 9D) being provided with a first dent accommodating the plurality of electrode assemblies and the elastic insulation members (Park Fig. 9D).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park further teaches the plurality of electrode assemblies connected in parallel by using the electrical connector (Park [76]).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park further teaches the electrode assembly being a wound structure or a laminated structure (Park Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Claim 15 is a product-by-process claim (die-cutting). Although Park does not teach the electrical connector being integrally formed with a cathode electrode plate or an anode electrode plate by die-cutting, it is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park is silent to the width of the gap. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the gap to include the claimed range. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Additionally, it is noted that the claimed range (“at least 0.5 mm”) is broad and open-ended as there is no upper limit.
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park further teaches the elastic insulation members (250b, Park Fig. 9D; Fig. 6A and 6B shown below) being disposed in pairs on two surfaces of the electrical connector (420 and 430) (Park Fig. 9D).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Park further teaches the elastic insulation members (250b) being disposed on one surface of the electrical connector (420 and 430) (Park Fig. 9D).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2, 4, and 11-13 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 12 and cancelation of claims 2, 11, and 13 in the response received on July 16, 2026. The objections to 2, 4, and 11-13 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-18 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 5 in the response received July 16, 2026. These rejections of claims 1-18 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon (US 2016/0099456 A1): appears to disclose a flexible battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies, an electrical connector, elastic insulation members, and a package bag (Fig. 47).
Seo (US 2022/0359961 A1): appears to disclose a flexible battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies, an electrical connector, and a package bag (Fig. 1).
Kwon2 (US 2016/0099454 A1): appears to disclose a flexible battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies, an electrical connector, elastic insulation members, and a package bag (Fig. 30).
Jang (US 2022/0302545 A1): appears to disclose a flexible battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies, an electrical connector, and elastic insulation members (Fig. 8C).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights