DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/623062, “METHOD OF MANUFACTURING RECHARGEABLE BATTERY POUCH, APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND RECHARGEABLE BATTERY MANUFACTURED THEREBY”, was filed on 4/1/24.
18/623062 is a Division of application 17/568243 (now USP 11,978,843), which was filed with the USPTO on 1/4/22, and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 1/5/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 6/13/26.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are drawn to “[a]n apparatus for manufacturing a rechargeable battery pouch…”. Thus, the claims are drawn to an apparatus, the scope of which is determined under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2114 and MPEP 2115.
As described in MPEPs 2114 and 2115, neither the manner of using a claimed apparatus, nor the article to be worked on by the apparatus limit the claimed apparatus. Thus, the limitations of the claim drawn to the method in which the apparatus is intended to be employed or the article worked on by the apparatus are only given weight in terms of any structure implied for the apparatus itself by the recitations.
Although the Examiner’s mapping of the prior art onto the claimed apparatus includes some discussion of the article worked on by the apparatus or method in which the apparatus is employed, such mapping is only intended to clarify the manner in which the prior art apparatus possesses the structural features of the apparatus which are implied by the limitations, and is not intended to suggest that the prior art must disclose the recited method steps or features of the article shaped by the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/13/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
In response to applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn; however, art rejections remain.
The amended claims are not intended to merely recite an operating result or a manufacturing process. Rather the claims define the specific structural arrangement of the bending die, the bending knife and the pouch film interposed therebetween. In response, the Office acknowledges applicant’s good faith intention to claim the invention. However, it is noted that the pouch film is an element of a rechargeable battery, which is shaped by the bending die as described in applicant’s detailed description. Thus, the pouch film is not a structural component of the claimed apparatus, which is an apparatus [particularly a die system including a bending die and a bending knife] used for manufacturing a battery pouch.
Fuji is deficient in teaching the claimed invention at least because Fuji is directed to forming a metal component, and does not disclose the claimed structural relationship recited in the claims, namely a pouch film disposed between a bending die and a bending knife, arranged as claimed. In response, the pouch film is an article worked on by the claimed apparatus, not a structural feature of the apparatus. As described in the art rejections in detail, the prior art suggests a shaping apparatus having the positive claimed structure. The prior art need not teach the pouch film, or a method step of using the shaping apparatus to shape a pouch film.
Sakamoto does not disclose applicant’s claimed structure for forming an uneven portion in a bent portion of a rechargeable battery pouch film using a bending die and a bending knife arranged on opposite surfaces of the pouch film. In response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Sakamoto is only relied on as described in the claims, and is not required to teach features of the claimed alleged by the Office to be taught by other prior art in the body of the rejections.
Applicant argues that the combination of Fuji and Sakamoto fail to teach elements of the claimed invention listed on page 10 of the remarks, each of which refers to the pouch film. In response, as described elsewhere and repeatedly in this Office Action, the pouch film is not a structural feature of the apparatus, but is instead an article worked on by the apparatus. The prior art is not required to teach the same use of the apparatus. The art rejections do clearly explain why the prior art apparatus possesses a structure which is capable of shaping a film in the manner described by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii (US 2015/0360272).
Regarding claim 1 Fujii teaches an apparatus (Fig. 3b; Examiner’s Modified Fig. 3b below), the apparatus comprising:
a bending die (item 1) forming a bent portion by bending a pouch film (intended use limitation, addressed below); and
a bending knife (item 2) forming an uneven portion on the bent portion of the pouch film (intended use limitation, addressed below);
wherein the bending die includes an edge in the shape of a rising peak having a predetermined angle (Figure 3b item 1 illustrates a bending die having an edge of a predetermined angle and a recess formed into the predetermined angle; Modified Fig. 3b illustrates the rising peak with the solid and dashed line); and a recess formed in the peak of the edge (the peak, indicated by the dashed line, has been indented by a recess formed therein);
wherein the pouch film is disposed between the bending die and the bending knife such that a first surface of the pouch film contacts the bending die and a second surface of the pouch film contacts the bending knife (Fig. 3b illustrates an article 10 arranged as claimed; the pouch film recited in the claims is an article to be worked on by the apparatus, not a feature of the apparatus; see more below on the “pouch film”); wherein the bending knife is configured to press the pouch film toward the recess of the bending die so that the pouch film is pressed between the bending die and the bending knife (the apparatus is configured such that the bending knife 2 and bending die 1 including a recess are couplable to press a film 10 therebetween); wherein an end of the bending knife is aligned with the recess of the bending die such that the uneven portion is formed in the bent portion of the pouch film (See Fig. 3B where a portion of the bending die 2 indicated by its arrow is aligned with the recess of the bending die [the recess is the portion between the two “bend radius” arrows]; the wavy line near A-A’ indicates that the illustrated portion of item 2 is one end of a larger component); and
the uneven portion has a waveform smaller than a waveform of the bent portion (This limitation describes the structure of the pouch film since “the uneven portion” and “the bent portion” are previously characterized as structure of the pouch film. However, the claimed product is an apparatus, not a pouch film. It is noted that for the bending die, the structure which forms the bent portion has a larger wave form, illustrated by the bold line including a dashed portion in the Modified Fig. 3, than the wave form of the structure which forms the uneven portion, i.e. the recess formed between the two “bend radius” arrows of Fig. 3b item 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
203
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii does not teach wherein the apparatus is an apparatus for manufacturing a rechargeable battery pouch, that the film (Fuii item 10) is a “pouch film”, or the film is first bent along an edge angle of the bending die to form a bent portion and then reshaped with the bending knife to form the uneven portion in a pouch film.
However, claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus, not a method of manufacturing a battery pouch, and not the battery pouch or a pouch film. As described in MPEPs 2114 and 2115, neither the manner of using a claimed apparatus, nor the article to be worked on by the apparatus limit the claimed apparatus.
In this case, the recitations describing the use of the apparatus to shape a film, claimed as a pouch film, in a particular way and the structure of the formed film are not features of the apparatus and the actual structure of the claimed apparatus is equivalent to that claimed. In other words, the prior art apparatus could be used to perform the claimed bending operation, even though this is not the intended use of the prior art apparatus, thus the additional limitations do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art apparatus.
Regarding claims 3, Fujii remains as applied to claim 2. Fujii further teaches (e.g. Fig. 3b) wherein a protrusion (labeled as “bend radius” of item 2) corresponding to the recess of the bending die (compare to the central recess of item 1) is formed at the end of a bending knife (the wavy line near A-A’ indicates that the illustrated portion is one end of a larger component), and the protrusion of the bending knife is configured to press the pouch film toward the recess such that the uneven portion is formed in the bent portion of the pouch film (closing the die of Fig. 3b causes item 2 to press the central portion of film 10 toward the recess within item 1 such that an uneven portion is formed).
Regarding claims 6, Fujii remains as applied to claim 1. Fujii further teaches wherein the bending knife is configured to press the bent portion of the pouch film toward the recess of the bending die to form the uneven portion in the bent portion (closing the die of Fig. 3b causes item 2 to press the central portion of film 10 toward the recess within item 1 such that an uneven portion is formed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Fujii (US 2015/0360272) and Sakamoto (US 2017/0216901).
Regarding claims 4, Fujii remains as applied to claim 1. Fujii does not appear to teach wherein the bending die has two or more recesses, and the bending knife has two or more protrusions corresponding to the two or more recesses of the bending die.
In the press forming art, Sakamoto teaches wherein bending die – bending knife set, wherein the bending die has two or more recesses, and the bending knife has two or more protrusions corresponding to the two or more recesses of the bending die (see Figs. 1, 9), the structure employed for the benefit of imparting a wavy structure to a member to be pressed (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of Fujii by providing the bending die with two or more recesses and the bending knife with two or more protrusions corresponding to the two or more recesses of the bending die for the benefit of configuring the apparatus to make a different or more complex structure as taught by Sakamoto. Such a modification merely requires the combination of elements known in the art to yield the predictable result of an apparatus capable of making a more intricate pattern on a film; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2141 III, rationale A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights