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 12/8/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/8/25 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
In response to applicant’s amendment to claim 5 and corresponding remarks, the claim is now found to be supported by the priority document.
Claim 1 is distinguished by Fujii as claim 1 now requires that the apparatus is “configured to form the bent portion and the uneven portion having a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film”. In response, the argument is not found persuasive since the Fujii apparatus appears to be configured to perform this function. The actual performance of the function is not requires since the claim is drawn to an apparatus, not a method. See the art rejections below for more detail.
Fujii is drawn to an apparatus for forming a curved edge on a metal plate and is therefore distinguished from the claimed apparatus which bends a thin pouch film as required by the claims. In response, an apparatus, as in Fujii, which is capable of bendign a metal plate would also be capable of bending a [presumably more malleable] pouch film. The intended use of the apparatus does not distinguish the prior art apparatus from the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114 II).
The apparatus of the present invention employs a continuous forming structure that maintains the same cross-section along the length of the film, which is fundamentally different from Fujii in terms of both shape and function. In response, as to function, any difference in function is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention unless it is coupled to a difference in structure. As to shape, the claimed recitation does not appear to clearly set forth the structural difference argued by applicant. It is noted that applicant’s as-filed specification, including the drawings, do not clarify how the same cross-section along the length of the film is enabled by the claimed apparatus, thus the limitation has been broadly interpreted.
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 and 3-6 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, each of claims 1, 5 and 6 are claims drawn to an apparatus but include substantial functional and/or method steps apparently intended to limit the structure of the claimed apparatus, and it is not clear how these limitations actually limit the claimed apparatus.
For example, claim 1 requires “wherein the bending die and the bending knife are configured to form the bent portion and the uneven portion having a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film” of claim 1. However, any bending die [such as that of Fujii applied in the rejection below] could form a bent portion in an object having a constant-cross-sectional shape along a direction of a film, if the film is capable of being bent and has material resiliency in the cross-sectional direction along a longitudinal direction thereof. Alternatively, it is unclear how any bending die could avoid causing cross-sectional inconsistency if the material of the film did not have high resiliency in the thickness direction. Therefore, it is unclear how the recitation actually limits the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Similarly, the recitations of claim 5 and 6 requiring that “the apparatus forms a bent portion in the rechargeable battery pouch in a direction opposite to a folding direction…” and “the apparatus presses the bent portion to form the uneven portion…”, respectively, do not unambiguously define structure for the apparatus.
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 5-6 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);
the pouch film is bent along the edge angle of the bending die to form the bent portion, and then the end of the bending knife is received in the recess to form the uneven portion (this describes a method of using the apparatus, discussed below), 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.
Claim 1 as amended on 12/8/25 further requires that “the bending die and the bending knife are configured to form the bent portion and the uneven portion having a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film.”
However, as described in MPEP 2114 II, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”.
In this case, the recitation, “configured to form the bent portion and the uneven portion having a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film” does not explicitly require, or implicitly suggest, any particular structure for the apparatus which is not taught by Fujii.
More specifically, the shaping apparatus of Fujii Figure 3b could form a bent portion and an uneven portion having a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film. It is noted that the film characteristic of maintaining “a constant cross-sectional shape along a longitudinal direction of the pouch film” seems to be a consequence of the material selected to make the film, as a less compressible material or a resilient material would maintain it’s thickness [i.e. a constant cross-sectional shape] during and/or after a molding action, whereas a material more susceptible to permanent deformation in the thickness direction would not maintain it’s thickness. Therefore, this added limitation is not found to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Fujii.
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 one 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 accommodated in a bent portion of the pouch film thereby forming an uneven portion in the pouch film (this describes an intended use of the apparatus, not an additional structural feature thereof).
Regarding claims 5, Fujii remains as applied to claim 1. Claim 5 as amended on 12/8/25 further requires that “the apparatus forms a bent portion in the rechargeable battery pouch in a direction opposite to a folding direction in which the pouch film is folded to accommodate the electrode assembly, then the pouch film is folded so that the pouch film accommodates the electrode assembly.”
However, as described in MPEP 2114 II, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”.
In this case, the recitation, “the apparatus forms a bent portion in the rechargeable battery pouch in a direction opposite to a folding direction in which the pouch film is folded to accommodate the electrode assembly, then the pouch film is folded so that the pouch film accommodates the electrode assembly” does not explicitly require, or implicitly suggest, any particular structure for the apparatus which is not taught by Fujii.
More specifically, the shaping apparatus of Fujii Figure 3b could form a bent portion in the rechargeable battery pouch in a direction opposite to a folding direction in which the pouch film is folded to accommodate an electrode assembly. It is noted that “a folding direction in which the pouch film is folded to accommodate the electrode assembly” appears to be unrelated to the claimed apparatus as the folding could be achieved by a different apparatus or by hand. Thus, the claimed apparatus merely needs to be capable of forming a bent portion in the pouch [film] in a direction opposite to said arbitrary folding direction. Moreover, the additional recitation, “then the pouch film is folded so that the pouch film accommodates the electrode assembly” is a process step also unrelated to the apparatus structure. Therefore, these added limitations are not found to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Fujii.
Regarding claims 6, Fujii remains as applied to claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, “wherein the apparatus presses the bent portion to form the uneven portion in the bent portion by using the bending knife”.
However, this recitation describes a manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed without setting forth any new structural features of the apparatus. Therefore, the recitation is not found to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over that of the prior art (MPEP 2114 II).
It is noted that this recitation refers to the bent portion [of the film] which is shaped by the apparatus as described in the rejection of claim 1. Fujii Paragraph [0057] clarifies that the die produces a product having an M-shaped structure; thus, the Fujii apparatus does appear to press the bent portion of the film to form an uneven portion therein during the normal use of the apparatus.
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
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 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