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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/29/2025. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2025/0219260 A1 – of Record) in view of Mortara et al. (US 2022/0297412 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an apparatus for sealing (Para. [0069]) a pouch-type secondary battery (Fig. 1) including a sealing portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 420) at a location from which an electrode lead extends (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) comprising a pressing part and a heating part (Para. [0069]); but does not teach a transfer part nor that the pressing part includes an elastic body in a continuous band shape.
In an analogous art, Mortara teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) for heat pressing a multilayered structure that comprises a transfer part (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 20) to move the material in one direction, two pressing parts that includes an elastic body having a continuous band shape (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) and a pressing roller disposed within the elastic body (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 23) where the two pressing parts are disposed on opposite sides of the transfer part, and a heating part (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Song with Mortara to turn the sealing apparatus into a continuous one including a pressing part made of an elastic band. This modification will allow the sealing to occur at lower pressures (Para. [0084]) and increase the efficiency making it a continuous process. Song teaches the battery should be sealed for 1.5 to 3 seconds (Para. [0042]) and Mortara teaches the movement speed of 0.5 to 5 m/min (Para. [0088]). This would mean the elastic body is passing over the battery for 0.125 to 0.25 m, which is within the claimed range of less than 1.5m.
Regarding claim 4, modified Song teaches that the elastic body is made of PTFE (Mortara; Para. [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches that the battery sealing occurs at 180 to 215 degrees Celsius (Para. [0042]) and Mortara teaches that the apparatus is configured to heat at 200 to 260 degrees Celsius (Para. [0096]), both ranges which overlap each other and the claimed range of 200 to 250 degrees Celsius which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches that the battery sealing occurs at 0.3 to 0.6 Mpa (Para. [0042]) and Mortara teaches that the apparatus is configured to press at less than 5 bar (0.5 Mpa) (Para. [0095]), both ranges which overlap each other and the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 MPa which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2025/0219260 A1) and (US 2022/0297412 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuboshi (physical_properties_ptfeEN).
Regarding claim 2, modified Song teaches that the elastic body is made of PTFE (Mortara; Para. [0085]), but does not teach the Young’s modulus of the elastic body. However, a PTFE data sheet teaches that the Young’s modulus of PTFE is 0.3Gpa (Mitsuboshi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the Young’s modulus of the elastic body 0.3 GPa as the elastic body is made of PTFE and that is a physical property of PTFE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Song et al. (US 2025/0219260 A1) and Mortara et al. (US 2022/0297412 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Song and Mortara teach all the limitations except for the movement speed of the pouch-type battery being 8 m/min to 15 m/min. Mortara teaches the movement speed being 0.5 to 5 m/min (Para. [0088]) so it would not be obvious to modify that to have the movement speed be outside that range and destroy the reference for the intended purpose. It is the examiner’s opinion that without the improper use of hindsight or destroying the references for their intended use, it would not have been obvious to combine prior art references in the manner, as required by claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Song in view of Mortara does not teach two pressing parts; however, Mortara does teach two pressing parts ((Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21, 23) where one is above the product and one is below the product.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights