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 without traverse of claims 1-13 and 15-17 in the reply filed on 2-27-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 9-13 and 16-17 are allowable. Claim 14, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1-7-26, is hereby withdrawn and claim 14 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-13 and 15-17 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 the limitation "the punch hole" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 15-17 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites wherein the friction coating layer comprises silicon. It’s not clear if it’s intended to recite silicone.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2020/0168853) in view of Park et al. (English translation of KR20180118929).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a pouch molding apparatus 100 comprising:
A die plate 111A having a molding hole 11 passing through top and bottom surfaces of the die plate, wherein the die plate is configured to seat a pouch film 10 on an upper portion of the die plate;
A first stripper 121 having a punching hole 121a with a portion corresponding to the molding hole, wherein the first stripper is configured to press and affix the pouch film to an upper side of the die plate;
A punch part 130 configured to be drawn in and out of the punching hole and the molding hole to mold the pouch film (fig. 1-6, abstract, claim 1).
Kim et al. does not teach a second stripper configured to protrude from a bottom surface of the first stripper along a circumference of the punch hole to press and affix the pouch film. However, Park et al. teaches a battery box with an anti-crimp guide and a device thereof, the anti-crimp guide is formed by placing a laminate 301 on the upper part of the die 310, forming an electrode assembly accommodation 302 on the die 310, pressing and fixing the laminated sheet 301 with the fixing member 330, forming a punch hole in the fixing member 330 at a position corresponding to the electrode assembly accommodating portion 302, drawing the pressing member 320 in an out of the punch hole of the fixing member 330 and the electrode assembly accommodating portion 302 of the die 310 to shape the laminated sheet 301, providing a protrusion 332 protruding on the bottom surface of the fixing member 310 and provided along the outer periphery of the punch hole and serves to press and fix the laminate 301. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. with the second stripper as taught by Park et al. in order to improve the fixing effect and thereby improve the molding quality.
Regarding claim 2, Park et al. does not teach wherein the second stripper has a ring shape having an inner circumference and an outer circumference, wherein the inner circumference is greater than the circumference of the punch hole. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second stripper with a ring shape with an inner circumference greater than the circumference of the punch hole since it’s merely a design change that does not affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. discloses an upper plate positioned above the first stripper; and
A lower plate positioned below the die plate,
Wherein the upper plate and the lower plate are coupled to each other at a respective edge thereof by a coupling member 152 that extends vertically (fig. 1, para 52).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses wherein the punch part comprises:
A punch body 131; and
A punch 131a provided below the punch body and having a pressing surface configured to press the pouch film (fig. 1, para 43-44).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view Park et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenland (2013/001123).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al. does not teach the second stripper further includes a friction coating layer on a surface facing the die plate. However, Greenland teaches the upper surface of the lower platen 160 comprises a plurality of facings 170. The facing may be fabricated with any suitable resilient material such as silicone rubber (para 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park et al. with the teaching of Greenland in order to avoid slipping to ensure the fixing effect.
Regarding claim 4, Greenland teaches wherein the friction coating layer comprises silicone (para 84).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Park et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (2023/0321709).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. discloses a die back plate 111b positioned between the lower plate and the die plate to support the die plate form a lower side (fig. 1, para 36-37). Kim et al. does not teach a stripper back plate positioned between the first stripper and the upper plate to affix at least one of the first stripper or the second stripper. However, Lee et al. teaches a back plate coupled to the stripper and configured to support the stripper (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. with the stripper back plate of Lee et al. in order to support the stripper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-14, 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach wherein the first stripper further includes an insertion groove therein that is recessed upward from a lower portion of the first stripper, wherein the first stripper is formed along a circumference of the punch hole.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach wherein the first stripper is formed along a circumference of the punch hole, and the second stripper is affixed to the stripper back plage by a fixing member configured to pass through a through-hole in the first stripper.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach wherein the first stripper is formed along a circumference of the punch hole, wherein the second stripper is fixed to the upper plate by a fixing member configured to pass through ta through-hole in the first stripper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742