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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of the claim, after “K+”, delete “,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 20160329533 A1, disclosed in IDS) in view of Izawa et al. (“Izawa”, JP 2014136653 A, see machine translation), Kwon et al. (“Kwon”, US 20140335391 A1, disclosed in IDS) and Ahn et al. (“Ahn”, US 20120282419 A1, disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tajima teaches a film for covering an entire outer surface of a secondary battery electrode assembly (Tajima, Title, Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9-11), the film comprising:
a mechanical support layer that is a polymer layer (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0072], [0135], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 (one of which is being interpreted as mechanical support layer) and a region 111 therebetween; the exterior film 112 or the exterior film 113 preferably contains an organic material; as the exterior body 116, for example, an exterior film having a three-layer structure can be employed in which a layer (or a region) containing reduced graphene oxide is provided over a film containing an organic material such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, ionomer, or polyamide, and a film containing an organic material such as an insulating synthetic resin, e.g. a silicone resin, a polyamide-based resin, or a polyester-based resin, is provided as an outer surface of the exterior body over the layer containing reduced graphene oxide);
a reduced graphene oxide layer disposed on an outer surface of the mechanical support layer, the reduced graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets, the reduced graphene oxide layer having a thickness ranging from 100 nm to 10 um (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0073], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 and a region 111 (which is being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide layer) therebetween; in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are dispersed substantially uniformly in the region 111; the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are actually thin films each having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or a multi-layer of carbon molecules; the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide; the region 111 may be formed in such a manner that a plurality of thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are stacked (when the graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene, the interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm, and reduced graphene oxide layer (region 111) formed by a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets (thin flakes 114) as shown in Figs. 1-2, the thickness of the reduced graphene oxide layer (region 111) overlaps the claimed range of from 100 nm to 100 um, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))); and
a sealant layer disposed on an outer surface of the reduced graphene oxide layer (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0067], [0073], [0176], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 (one of which is being interpreted as sealant layer) and a region 111 therebetween; in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide; an exterior film having a three-layer structure can be used in which a layer (or a region) containing reduced graphene oxide is provided over a film containing an organic material such as polyethylene, and a film containing an organic material such as an insulating synthetic resin is provided as the outer surface of the exterior body over the layer containing reduced graphene oxide; with such a three-layer structure, permeation of an electrolytic solution and a gas can be blocked and an insulating property and resistance to the electrolytic solution can be obtained),
wherein each of the reduced graphene oxide sheets has a thickness ranging from 0.002 to 10 um (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0073], e.g., in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm (when the graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene and the interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm, the thickness of the reduced graphene oxide sheet (e.g., every 2 to 3 layers graphene) overlaps the claimed range of from 0.002 to 10 um, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are dispersed substantially uniformly in the region 111; the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are actually thin films each having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or a multi-layer of carbon molecules; the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Tajima dose not teach wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion, the metal ion being at least one of Mg2+, Ca2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Co2+, Al3+, Cr3+ or Fe3+, wherein the film further comprises at least one of: an adhesive layer between the reduced graphene oxide layer and the sealant layer, or an adhesive layer between the mechanical support layer and the reduced graphene oxide layer, and wherein the film has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) ranging from 10-6 g/m2/day to10-3 g/m2/day.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Izawa teaches a film comprising plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer is expected to form electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion, the metal ion being Cu2+, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Izawa, Title, [0017], [0025], [0030], e.g., metal-doped graphene oxide; as the metal used in this case, various metals such as silver and copper can be used; the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure (which is being interpreted as a film) in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) (electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets/layers via the metal cations (Cu2+) is expected to be formed, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); production of copper metal doped graphene oxide and copper metal doped reduced graphene oxide)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion, the metal ion being Cu2+, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]).
Tajima in view of Izawa dose not teach wherein the film further comprises at least one of: an adhesive layer between the reduced graphene oxide layer and the sealant layer, or an adhesive layer between the mechanical support layer and the reduced graphene oxide layer, and wherein the film has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) ranging from 10-6 g/m2/day to10-3 g/m2/day.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches a film comprising an adhesive layer may be added between the moisture-blocking film and the sealant polymer layers, so as to more enhance the adhesiveness (Kwon, Title, Fig. 3, [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the film further comprises at least one of: an adhesive layer between the reduced graphene oxide layer and the sealant layer, or an adhesive layer between the mechanical support layer and the reduced graphene oxide layer, for the purpose of enhancing the adhesiveness (Kwon, [0064]).
Tajima in view of Izawa and Kwon dose not teach wherein the film has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) ranging from 10-6 g/m2/day to10-3 g/m2/day.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahn teaches a graphene protective film comprising the substrate coated with a protective film so as to have maximum moisture transmittance of from 10-5 cc/m2/1 day to 10-6 cc/m2/1 day (which is being interpreted as water vapor transmission rate, which falls in the claimed range of 10-6 g/m2/day to 10-3 g/m2/day) (Ahn, Title, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the film has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) falls in the claimed range from 10-6 g/m2/day to 10-3 g/m2/day, for the purpose of obtaining resistance against moisture (Ahn, [0004]).
The recitation “for covering an entire outer surface of a secondary battery electrode assembly” is an intended use of the film. Tajima in view of Izawa, Kwon and Ahn all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima teaches wherein each of the reduced graphene oxide sheets has a structure of one to three layers of reduced graphene oxide particles (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], e.g., in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO)).
Regarding claim 4, Tajima in view of Izawa, Kwon and Ahn teaches the film of claim 1 as disclosed above. Tajima does not teach wherein the metal ion is at least one of Li+, K+ or Ag+.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Izawa teaches a film comprising plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer is expected to form electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion (Cu2+, Ag+), the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Izawa, Title, [0017], [0025], [0029], [0030], e.g., metal-doped graphene oxide; as the metal used in this case, various metals such as silver and copper can be used; the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure (which is being interpreted as a film) in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) (electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets/layers via the metal cations (Cu2+, Ag+) is expected to be formed, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); Production of silver metal-doped graphene oxide and silver metal-doped reduced graphene oxide; production of copper metal doped graphene oxide and copper metal doped reduced graphene oxide)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the metal ion further comprises Ag+, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]). The combination of familiar or known elements, e.g., Cu2+ and Ag+, is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Tajima teaches wherein the reduced graphene oxide sheets have an interlayer spacing falling in the claimed range of from 0.3 nm to 5.0 nm (Tajima, [0066], e.g., graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Izawa relates to a method for manufacturing reduced graphene oxide and does not specifically disclose a technology for incorporating a reduced graphene oxide layer into a secondary battery packaging film. Specifically, Izawa does not disclose or teach anything about how reduced graphene oxide can be used in packaging films to provide moisture and/or gas barrier properties. Rather, it only discloses its use as a material for increasing the surface area of electrodes in high- performance electronic components, such as capacitors and storage devices, to achieve large capacities (see [Background Art] in Izawa). As described in paragraph [0025] of Izawa, Izawa only discloses that metal ions are doped (inserted) into reduced graphene oxide layers to provide "excellent functionality," but the reference does not disclose or imply any moisture and/or gas barrier properties. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the unexpected results of superior moisture and/or gas barrier effect of the present invention cannot be easily predicted even through the combination of Tajima and Izawa. … in Izawa, which discloses metal-doped reduced graphene sheets, there is no disclosure or suggestion that the interaction by cations with a valence of two or more has a more advantageous effect.” (Remarks, Page 7).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In the same field of endeavor, Izawa teaches a film comprising plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer is expected to form electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion, the metal ion being Cu2+, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Izawa, Title, [0017], [0025], [0030], e.g., metal-doped graphene oxide; as the metal used in this case, various metals such as silver and copper can be used; the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure (which is being interpreted as a film) in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) (electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets/layers via the metal cations (Cu2+) is expected to be formed, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); production of copper metal doped graphene oxide and copper metal doped reduced graphene oxide)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion, the metal ion being Cu2+, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]).
Applicant has not provided proof of objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112).
The recitation “for covering an entire outer surface of a secondary battery electrode assembly” is an intended use of the film. Tajima in view of Izawa, Kwon and Ahn all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Arguments regarding the film being used as packaging and providing moisture and/or gas barrier properties and its advantageous effect is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
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 HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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 can be reached at (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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights