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
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 11/15/2023, 11/26/2024, 01/20/2025, 04/29/2025, 06/16/2026, 01/05/2026, and 09/08/2026 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 102 in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 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 1-3 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.
The terms “near” and “far” in claims 1 and 3 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “near” and “far” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The relative thicknesses of the laminate sheet at regions relative to the electrode body are rendered indefinite due to the use of the terms “near” and “far.” For purpose of examination, so long as the “near” region is closer to the electrode body than a “far” region, it will read on claims 1 and 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (U.S. 20110244315, presented in IDS submitted 04/29/2025).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Yoon discloses a laminated battery (pouch-type secondary battery) (Fig. 2B; [0010])) comprising:
an electrode body (110 – electrode assembly) (Fig. 2B); and
a laminate sheet (120 and 130 – pouch sheets) that covers the electrode body (110) (Fig. 2B), wherein:
the laminated battery has a fused portion (140a-c/141a – sealed portions) at which one end side (121, 122, 123 – first side, second side, third side of 120) and another end side (131, 132, 133 – first side, second side, third side of 130) of the laminate sheet (120 and 130) (Fig. 2B), which covers the electrode body (110), are fused (Fig. 2B; ([0030]),
the fused portion (140a-c/141a) has a step portion (125/135 – sealing marks) at which a thickness of a region near an electrode body side (126 /136 – sealing marks) is thinner than a thickness of a region far from the electrode body side (labeled) (Fig. 4C – above), and
a ratio (LS1/LE) of an outer peripheral length (LE – labeled) of the electrode body and an inner peripheral length (LS1 – labeled) of the laminate sheet (120/130) that covers the electrode body (110) is equal to 1.00 (Fig. 4B – below), thus falling into the claimed range of 1.00 to 1.05 and reading on claim 2. Although it is not stated explicitly that LS1/LE is 1.00, the lack of any gaps or space within the sealed battery according to Fig. 4C below would inherently produce a battery where LS1/LE is 1.00.
PNG
media_image2.png
235
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded 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).
With respect to claim 3, Yoon discloses a region near the electrode body side (thinner region) and a region far from the electrode body (thicker region) (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the difference of the thinner regions thickest place compared to the thicker region thinnest place is in the range of 10 micrometers to 150 micrometers. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the specification is silent with regards to what the difference in the thickest portion of the thin region and the thinnest portion of the thick region accomplishes in the laminated battery. For that reason, it is assumed that the range of differences claimed between these regions would not perform differently than the prior art’s more broadly shown range depicted in Fig. 4C. Therefore, the relative dimensions of the difference between the claimed spaces is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights