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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l: Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 drawn to the non-elected group are withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS’ entered 07/31/2024 and 03/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 states “applying heat to the wing of the cell pouch includes increasing a surface temperature of the wing to a maximum of 220 degrees” but does not specify the unit of temperature. The examiner will interpret this to be 220 degrees Celsius based on P0053 in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devan (US 20140109397 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Devan teaches a pouch folding method (ABS), comprising: applying heat to a wing of a cell pouch to obtain a heated wing (P0012); and folding the heated wing of the cell pouch (P0012).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devan (US 20140109397 A1) in view of McKinney (US 20110059343 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Devan teaches applying heat to a wing of a cell pouch (P0012) but is silent to applying heat in a non-contact manner.
McKinney, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches that heat is applied using a radiative or inductive heat source (P0037-38, P0129) which meets the limitation of wherein applying heat includes applying heat by using a heater, wherein the heater is spaced apart from the wing and applies heat to the wing in a non-contact manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a non-contact heat source in the method of Devan such as that in McKinney for the purpose of using the sufficient amount of heat to seal the polymer as taught by McKinney (P0129). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try this as there are a limited number of heating mechanisms for softening polymers. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, McKinney teaches wherein the heater is an induction heating heater configured to heat the wing using induction (P0129).
Regarding claim 4, While Devan is silent to wherein applying heat to the wing of the cell pouch includes applying heat to the wing using the heater while a cell is transferred along a transfer line, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this invention to perform these steps on a transfer line as part of an automated assembly process.
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (Note: with no specific) to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 5, Devan teaches wherein applying heat to the wing of the cell pouch includes increasing a surface temperature of the wing to a maximum of 150 degrees Celsius by applying heat to the wing (P0012) which is fully within the claimed range of a maximum of 220 degrees Celsius.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devan (US 20140109397 A1) in view of McKinney (US 20110059343 A1) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Yoon (US 20230139477 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Devan teaches wherein folding the heated wing of the cell pouch includes: a first folding operation to fold the wing by 45 degrees along a first folding line (P0041); and a second folding operation to fold the 45-degree folded wing by an additional 90 degrees along a second folding line (P0041), and wherein applying heat to the wing of the cell pouch includes: a first heating operation to heat the wing before the first folding operation (P0041); and a second heating operation to heat the 180-degree folded wing before the second folding operation (P0044).
While Devan is silent to a first bend at 180 degrees and a second bend at 90 degrees,
Yoon, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches a double folded seal in fig.10 that appears to have a first bend at 180 degrees and a second bend at 90 degrees that is subsequently compressed into a larger object (fig.10, P0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a double folded seal with a first bend at 180 degrees and a second bend at 90 degrees for the purpose of tightening the seal as taught by Yoon (P0060).
Regarding claims 7-8, Devan teaches two subsequent heat and fold operations as described above (P0041-44) and a set of heaters (P0040) and McKinney teaches that heat is applied using a radiative or inductive heat source (P0037-38, P0129), therefore the combination meets the limitations of wherein the first heating operation includes: applying heat to the wing in the non-contact manner by using a first heater, wherein the first heater locally heats a sealing part of the wing and a periphery region of the sealing part on the first folding line and wherein the second heating operation includes: applying heat to the wing in the non-contact manner by using a second heater, wherein the second heater locally heats a sealing part of the wing and a periphery region of the sealing part on the second folding line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741