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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,283,139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘139 patent anticipate the instant claims. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In particular:
Instant independent claim 1 corresponds to claims 1 and 5 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 2 corresponds to claim 2 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 3 corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 4 corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 5 corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 6 corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 8 corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 9 corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 10 corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘139 patent.
Instant dependent claim 11 corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘139 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowed if the above double patenting rejection was overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant independent claim 1 discloses a method of making a secondary battery including a forming step of pressing a pouch sheet using a press die forming a pair of accommodation grooves as set forth in the claim, and a bridge connecting the grooves as set forth in the claim, a seating step seating an electrode assembly in one of the pair of accommodation grooves, a folding step folding the pouch sheet so that the pair of accommodation grooves face each other, with a length along the pouch sheet before a portion contacts a lower edge of the electrode assembly of the bridge, and the bridge length, upper edge, length and height of the structures as set forth in the claim have the spatial relationship and dimension relationship as set forth in the claim.
No references alone or in combination have been found that disclose or render obvious all of the above instant independent claim limitations. However, a number of prior art references were found via a comprehensive search that are deemed to be pertinent to the aforementioned limitations of instant independent claim 1:
Kotik et al. (US 2017/0214057) discloses in Figs 1-25, a method of making a battery pack (ref 1) including forming a pouch housing (ref 22, [0039]) and folding in a particular manner such that the pouch housing (ref 22) has a definite ratio of height, length, and width ([0040]). However, this method does not disclose or render obvious the particular feature of the instant claim.
Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263) discloses in Figs 1-10, a method of making a battery ([0069]) including forming a pouch packaging material and folding in a definite process to form a length and width of a definite ratio ([0354]). However, this method does not disclose or render obvious the particular feature of the instant claim.
Bin et al. (KR 10-2017-022156, see Machine Translation) discloses in Figs 1-5, a pouch (ref 1) for a secondary battery (P1/Abstract), the pouch (ref 1) comprising, a pouch sheet (P4/bottom 7¶’s), wherein in an unfolded form (Figs 2-3), the pouch sheet includes: left and right accommodation grooves (refs 11, 21) for accommodating an electrode assembly (ref 100) when the pouch sheet (P4/bottom 7¶’s) is in a folded form (Figs 1, 4, 5) and which are bilaterally symmetrical to each other and are opened upward; and a bridge (ref 30) connecting the left and right accommodation grooves (refs 11, 21) to each other (Figs 2-3), wherein the bridge (ref 30) protrudes upward (Figs 2-3) with respect to bottom surfaces (Figs 2-3) of the left and right accommodation grooves (refs 11, 21), and a curved portion having a rounded shape (Figs 2-3, top of ref 30 is curved portion) is formed on an upper end of the bridge (ref 30). However, this reference, in combination with any of the other disclosed references, does not disclose nor render obvious all of the structural features of the pouch of the instant claims.
You et al. (US 2009/0311592) discloses a secondary battery (ref 100) including a pouch (ref 300) that has a middle bridge/bent portion (ref 340, Fig 3). The bridge/bent portion (ref 340, Fig 3) is in the middle of the pouch material (ref 300), resulting a symmetrical configuration of either side of the pouch material from the bridge/bent portion (ref 340, Fig 3). This reference, however, does not disclose nor render obvious all of the features of the pouch of the instant claims.
Kim et al. (US 2013/0071696) discloses in Figs 1-6, a pouch type secondary battery (ref 10, Abstract) including a pouch substrate having curved, bent edges (refs 23, Figs 2-3) enhancing the sealing of the pouch and safety ([0011], [0012], [0071]). However, this reference, in combination with any of the other disclosed references, does not disclose nor render obvious all of the structural features of the pouch of the instant claims.
Obasih et al. (US 2015/0118537) discloses in Figs 1-16, a secondary battery (Abstract) including a pouch (ref 220) housing a battery cell therein. The pouch (ref 220) has variable dimensions based on a sizing of an electrode assembly of the battery ([0066]). The pouch (ref 220) includes flaps (refs 224, 226) that are bent upwards at time of assembly and folded to make a final pouch structure ([0066]). However, all of the structural features of the pouch of the instant claims are not disclosed nor rendered obvious by this reference.
Seo (US 2006/0127756) discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondary battery (Abstract) including a pouch (ref 200) having flaps (refs 230) attached to a foldable hinge (ref 232). This structure is bent and folded into a final pouch structure ([0041]). The flaps and hinge of this structure do not share the structural dimensions and shared ratio of the battery pouch of the instant claims.
Reibling et al. (US 2016/0351863) discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery (ref 220) including an electrode assembly housed in a pouch (ref 202), the pouch having walls (refs 204, 206, 208, 210, 224) defining the structure of the pouch. Flaps (refs 212, 214) are included on the pouch walls and folded ([0022]) for form the final pouch structure. The pouch including the walls and flaps, however, do not disclose nor render obvious the pouch dimensional relationships as set forth in the instant claims.
As seen above, all of these references, alone or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of the instant claims. As such, instant independent claim 1 would be allowable over the cited prior art references of record if the above double patenting rejection was overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights