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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 13 June 2024.
Claims 1 – 15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 June 2024, 21 July 2025, and 19 February 2026 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, the limitation, “the cold unit”, should read, “a cold unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation are:
“a cold unit configured for cold-working a pouch sheet” – claims 1 and 13
“a forming unit configured to receive the pouch sheet subsequent to the pouch sheet passing through the cold unit and for forming an accommodating part” – claim 1
“a temperature control part configured for controlling the temperature of the space part of the cold chamber” – claim 2 and “configured to control a supply of compressed air into the space part” – claim 3 and “configured to maintain the temperature of the space part lower than standard room temperature”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 4 – 5 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the limitation, “standard room temperature”, is indefinite because it is ambiguous what range of temperatures constitutes, “standard room temperature”. Neither the claim nor the specification provide any guidance for ascertaining the requisite degree of temperatures that make up room temperature. It is also ambiguous what is meant by the term, “standard”. In scientific contexts, room temperature is often standardized at 25°C for consistency in experiments, particularly in chemistry. However, some physics references define standard room temperature as 20°C for thermodynamic calculations. Moreover, the specification does not use the term, “standard” so it is ambiguous whether the term, “standard room temperature”, means one of these specific temperatures or if the term is defined by its plain meaning. Given that the claims and specification do not provide any guidance for ascertaining the room temperature and there are different standard room temperatures used in science, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation, “standard room temperature”, to mean a temperature range of 20°C to 25°C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 – 2, 4, and 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gruneklee (US 10,532,395 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (Gruneklee (US 10,532,395 B2) – Annotated fig. 1)]
Regarding claim 1, Gruneklee discloses a pouch forming device comprising:
a cold unit (3, fig. 1) configured for cold-working a pouch sheet (1, fig. 1 and 7, fig. 3a); and
a forming unit (2, fig. 1) configured to receive the pouch sheet subsequent to the pouch sheet passing through the cold unit (figure 1) and for forming an accommodating part (7a, fig. 3a) in the pouch sheet, the accommodating part configured to accommodate an electrode assembly (Please note, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In the instant case, the pouch sheet is the material or article worked upon by the pouch forming device. Since the limitation, “the accommodating part configured to accommodate an electrode assembly”, is a limitation directed towards the pouch sheet and not towards the pouch forming device, the limitation does not impart patentability to the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Gruneklee discloses the cold unit (3, fig. 1) comprises a cold chamber having a space part through which the pouch sheet passes (space A, annotated fig. 1) and a temperature control part (Col. 6, ll. 23 – 27 describes the cooling apparatus 3 being thermally regulated and comprising closed circuits of refrigerants which transfer the cold to the panel/sheet 1. The examiner deems these closed circuits of refrigerants as the claimed, “a temperature control part”, since these refrigerants control the temperature within the cold unit) configured for controlling the temperature of the space part of the cold chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Gruneklee discloses the temperature control part (“closed circuits of cold refrigerants” – Col. 6, ll. 23 – 27) configured to maintain the temperature of the space part lower than standard room temperature (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 23 describes the cold refrigerants maintaining the temperature of the cold unit 3 at -20°C wherein -20°C is lower than standard room temperature of 20°C to 25°C).
Regarding claim 13, Gruneklee discloses a pouch forming method using the pouch forming device according to claim 1, comprising steps of:
passing a pouch sheet (1, fig. 1) through the cold unit (3, fig. 1); and
forming (via a forming tool 2, fig. 1) an accommodating part (7a, fig. 3a) in the pouch sheet to accommodate an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Gruneklee discloses maintaining a temperature of the cold unit (3, fig. 1) lower than standard room temperature (Col. 6, ll. 16 – 23 describes the cold refrigerants maintaining the temperature of the cold unit 3 at -20°C wherein -20°C is lower than standard room temperature of 20°C to 25°C).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruneklee (US 10,532,395 B2) in view of Bartoli (US 10,173,362 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gruneklee discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gruneklee discloses the forming unit (2, fig. 1).
Gruneklee does not explicitly disclose the forming unit comprising a die having a seating surface configured to receive the pouch sheet positioned thereon and a forming groove defined by the seating surface; a punch configured for press-fitting a partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part; and a stripper configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die.
However, Bartoli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a forming unit comprising a die (2, fig. 1) having a seating surface (7, fig. 1) configured to receive the pouch sheet (40, fig. 1) positioned thereon (figure 2) and a forming groove (4, fig. 1) defined by the seating surface; a punch (3, fig. 1) configured for press-fitting a partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part (figure 3); and a stripper (13, fig. 1) configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die.
Bartoli is evidence that having the forming unit comprising the die having the seating surface configured to receive the pouch sheet positioned thereon and the forming groove defined by the seating surface; the punch configured for press-fitting the partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part; and the stripper configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since both the forming unit of Gruneklee and the forming unit of Bartoli form an accommodating part within a panel/sheet, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success substituting the forming unit of Gruneklee for the forming unit of Bartoli to achieve the predictable result of forming an accommodating part within a panel/sheet. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) – Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results
Regarding claim 7, Gruneklee, as modified by Bartoli, discloses the invention recited in claim 6.
The modified Gruneklee discloses the die (Bartoli – 2, fig. 1) is configured to move the seating surface toward and/or away from the punch (Bartoli – 3, fig. 1) (Bartoli – Col. 4, ll. 61 – 67).
Regarding claim 8, Gruneklee, as modified by Bartoli, discloses the invention recited in claim 7.
The modified Gruneklee discloses when the die (Bartoli – 2, fig. 1) moves toward the punch (Bartoli – 3, fig. 1), the punch is positioned into the forming groove (4, fig. 1) (Bartoli – figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Gruneklee, as modified by Bartoli, discloses the invention recited in claim 8.
The modified Gruneklee discloses when the punch (Bartoli – 3, fig. 1) is positioned in the forming groove (Bartoli – 4, fig. 1), the seating surface (Bartoli – 7, fig. 1) of the die (Bartoli – 2, fig. 1) and the stripper (Bartoli – 13, fig. 1) contact each other (Bartoli – figure 3).
Claims 6 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruneklee (US 10,532,395 B2) in view of Kim (US 11,018,368 B2).
PNG
media_image3.png
256
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (Kim (US 11,018,368 B2) – Annotated fig. 2)]
Regarding claim 6, Gruneklee discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Gruneklee discloses the forming unit (2, fig. 1).
Gruneklee does not explicitly disclose the forming unit comprising a die having a seating surface configured to receive the pouch sheet positioned thereon and a forming groove defined by the seating surface; a punch configured for press-fitting a partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part; and a stripper configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die.
However, Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a forming unit comprising a die (110, fig. 2) having a seating surface (surface A, annotated fig. 2) configured to receive the pouch sheet (11, fig. 2) positioned thereon (figure 2) and a forming groove (111, fig. 2) defined by the seating surface; a punch (150, fig. 6) configured for press-fitting a partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part (figure 6); and a stripper (120, fig. 3) configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die.
Kim is evidence that having the forming unit comprising the die having the seating surface configured to receive the pouch sheet positioned thereon and the forming groove defined by the seating surface; the punch configured for press-fitting the partial region of the pouch sheet into the forming groove to form the accommodating part; and the stripper configured for pressing the an edge region of the pouch sheet positioned on the die was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since both the forming unit of Gruneklee and the forming unit of Kim form an accommodating part within a panel/sheet, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success substituting the forming unit of Gruneklee for the forming unit of Kim to achieve the predictable result of forming an accommodating part within a panel/sheet. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) – Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results
Regarding claim 10, Gruneklee, as modified by Kim, discloses the invention recited in claim 6.
The modified Gruneklee discloses the die (Kim – 110, fig. 2) further comprises one or more discharge passages (Kim – 112, 113, fig. 2) extending from the forming groove (Kim – 111, fig. 2) and configured to enable fluid movement.
Regarding claim 11, Gruneklee, as modified by Kim, discloses the invention recited in claim 10.
The modified Gruneklee discloses when the punch is positioned in the forming groove, each of the one or more discharge passages (Kim – 112, 113, fig. 2) is configured to discharge air from the forming groove (Kim – 111, fig. 2) to an outer side of the die (Kim – 110, fig. 2) (Kim – Figure 6 shows a punch unit 150 positioned in a forming groove 111 wherein vacuum passages 112, 113, would still be configured or be able to discharge air from the forming groove 111 to the outer side of a lower die 110).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights