POUCH CASE AND SECONDARY BATTERY USING THE SAME
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “height is ½ or more of the depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part” and “height is 2/3 or more of the depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim 1 discloses “second partitioning parts each extending from both ends of each partitioning part”. Which partitioning part is the second partitioning parts extending from?
Claim 2 discloses “wherein a height of the first partitioning part is lower than depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part, and is 1/2 or more of the depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part”. The second sentence seems to contradict the first part of the claim. Is the height lower or higher? The wording is confusing.
Claim 3 discloses “wherein a height of the first partitioning part is lower than depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part, and is 2/3 or more of the depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part”. The second sentence seems to contradict the first part of the claim. Is the height lower or higher? The wording is confusing.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0312237 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches a pouch case for receiving and packaging an electrode assembly, the pouch case comprising:
a first receiving part (
¶
0036, fig. 2 & 3 item 111 disclose a receiving unit.), and a second receiving part (
¶
0036, fig. 2 & 3 item 112 disclose a receiving unit.) which are concavely formed (fig. 2 & 3 disclose concavity of both);
a sealing part formed along an outer portion of the pouch case so as to surround the first and second receiving parts, in this case the portion surrounding the receiving units are thermally sealed (¶0025; see annotated fig. 2);
and a partitioning part formed between the first receiving part and the second receiving part and protruding from a bottom surface of each receiving part to the first receiving part and the second receiving part, in this case the bridge region (¶0037, fig. 2 & 3 item 120);
wherein the partitioning part includes:
a first partitioning part having an upper end having a height lower than that of the sealing part and partitioning the first receiving part and the second receiving part at a middle of the partitioning part, in this case the upper interior surface of the recessed portion (¶ 0036, fig. 3, item 113, see annotated fig. 3);
and second partitioning parts each extending from both ends of each partitioning part in a width direction toward the first partitioning part (¶ 0037, fig. 3 item 120, see annotated fig. 3 is extending in a width direction and parallel to the first partition part, as labeled in annotation.).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Moon
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Moon
However, Moon does not teach wherein a length of a cross section of an upper side surface of the first partitioning part is smaller than a sum of a depth of the first receiving part and a depth of the second receiving part.
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 (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 111 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A.). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the first partitioning part’s cross sectional length relative to the sum of the first and second receiving parts in order to provide sufficient space for the electrode assembly and maintain the required seal in the assembled battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the cross sectional length of the first partitioning part’s upper side surface to be smaller than a sum of a depth of the first receiving part and a depth of the second receiving part in order to accommodate the electrode assembly and maintain the required seal.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Moon et al. teach the pouch case of claim 1, wherein a height (Annotated fig. 5 below, “h1” label.) of the first partitioning part is lower than depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part (Annotated fig. 5 below, “h2” label.), and is 1/2 or 2/3 more of the depths of the first receiving part and the second receiving part (see annotated fig. 5).
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Moon
Regarding claim 4, Moon et al. teach a secondary battery (Abstract) including a pouch case and an electrode assembly,
the pouch case comprising:
a first receiving part (
¶
0036, fig. 2 & 3 item 111 disclose a receiving unit.), and a second receiving part (
¶
0036, fig. 2 & 3 item 112 disclose a receiving unit.) which are concavely formed (fig. 2 & 3 disclose concavity of both);
a sealing part formed along an outer portion of the pouch case so as to surround the first and second receiving parts, in this case the portion surrounding the receiving units are thermally sealed (¶0025; see annotated fig. 2);
and a partitioning part formed between the first receiving part and the second receiving part and protruding from a bottom surface of each receiving part to the first receiving part and the second receiving part, in this case the bridge region (¶0037, fig. 2 & 3 item 120);
wherein the partitioning part includes:
a first partitioning part having an upper end having a height lower than that of the sealing part and partitioning the first receiving part and the second receiving part at a middle of the partitioning part, in this case the upper interior surface of the recessed portion (¶ 0036, fig. 3, item 113, see annotated fig. 3);
and second partitioning parts each extending from both ends of each partitioning part in a width direction toward the first partitioning part (¶ 0037, fig. 3 item 120, see annotated fig. 3 is extending in a width direction and parallel to the first partition part, as labeled in annotation.).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Moon
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Moon
the electrode assembly is received and packaged in a receiving space formed by folding the partitioning part so that the first receiving part and the second receiving part of the pouch case face each other (¶0011 -0012, fig. 1, items 15, 11, & 12).
However, Moon does not teach wherein a length of a cross section of an upper side surface of the first partitioning part is smaller than a sum of a depth of the first receiving part and a depth of the second receiving part.
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 (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 111 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A.). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the first partitioning part’s cross sectional length relative to the sum of the first and second receiving parts in order to provide sufficient space for the electrode assembly and maintain the required seal in the assembled battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the cross sectional length of the first partitioning part’s upper side surface to be smaller than a sum of a depth of the first receiving part and a depth of the second receiving part in order to accommodate the electrode assembly and maintain the required seal.
Regarding claim 5, Moon et al. teach the secondary battery of claim 4, wherein the first partitioning part is a side surface in plane form when unfolded (see annotated fig. 3 under claim 4 rejection.) and the sealing part includes extending parts protruding in a direction perpendicular to the side surface part of the secondary battery at portions adjacent to both ends of the side surface part of the secondary battery, in this case the electrode assembly is inserted in the depth direction (see fig. 3) and the sealing portions extend perpendicularly from the depth direction (see fig. 3 & annotated fig. 2 under claim 4 rejection.).
Regarding claim 6, Moon et al. teach the secondary battery of claim 4, wherein the first partitioning part is unfolded it is formed as a side surface part of a plane form and dimples of a concave form are formed at both ends of the side surface part, in this case the planar form of the first partitioning part is separated from the first and second receiving parts by gaps or “dimples” (see annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
155
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Moon
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0312237 A1) as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Payne (US 2010/0279152 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Moon et al. teach a secondary battery pack comprising: one or more secondary batteries of claim 4. However, Moon et al. do not teach a cooling plate including a surface which is in surface contact with side surface parts of the secondary batteries.
Payne teaches a cooling plate including a surface in contact with side surface parts of the secondary batteries, in this case the graphite sheets in contact with the broad sides of the battery cells (¶0030-0031, fig. 5 & 6 item 102).
Therefore, with ordinary skill in the art would realize that including such cooling plates would promote heat conduction away from the battery cells (see ¶0030), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have including cooling plates in the battery pack in order to facilitate improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 8, Moon and Payne et al. teach the secondary battery pack of claim 7. Further, Moon et al. teach that the first partitioning part is a side surface in plane form when unfolded (see annotated fig. 3) and the sealing part includes extending parts protruding in a direction perpendicular to the side surface part of the secondary battery at portions adjacent to both ends of the side surface part of the secondary battery, in this case the electrode assembly is inserted in the depth direction (see fig. 3) and the sealing portions extend perpendicularly from the depth direction (see fig. 3 & annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Moon
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Moon
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 29th, 2026