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/Restrictions
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/25.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lacks clear antecedent basis for the phrase “intermediary polymer layer” in line 13. The claim refers to an “intermediary layer” in lines 6, 10 and 12. For purposes of applying prior art, the “intermediary layer” is considered to include a polymer.
Claim 1 is indefinite in view of the limitation “a modified polyolefin tie layer is deposited between the aluminum foil and polymer layer or between aluminum foil and polymer layer” in lines 20-21. Did Applicant intend to claim that the tie layer is between the Al layer and the inner polymer layer or between the Al and outer polymer layer? For purposes of applying prior art, a modified polyolefin tie layer between the Al layer and any polymer layer in the multilayered structure meets this claim limitation.
Claim 1 is indefinite in view of the limitation “wherein at least one of said aluminum foil and one of said polymer layer and comprises protective layer” in lines 22-23. For purposes applying prior art, this limitation has been interpreted to mean that any one of the Al foil, the inner polymer layer and the outer polymer layer includes a protective layer on a surface thereof.
Claim 3 lacks clear antecedent basis for the phrase “intermediary polymer layer” in lines 7 and 9-10. The claim refers to an “intermediary layer” in line 4. For purposes of applying prior art, the “intermediary layer” is considered to include a polymer.
Claims 2, 4, 6-16 and 19 are indefinite in view of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-149558(see English machine translation for citations) in view of EP 1359631 (see English machine translation for citations).
JP 2013-149558 discloses a flexible multilayered packaging for a battery having an Al layer (3) sandwiched between an oriented polyamide or polyester “outer” film (1) and a polypropylene “inner” film (4) - see Fig 1-4, para [0021]-[0022], [0033]. It is noted that the “inner” film faces the battery cell contained therein whereas the “outer” film faces the external structures of the battery module. The side of the Al foil facing the polypropylene layer has a Cr2O3 layer (3a) vapor deposited thereon – see para [0017]. This meets the claim limitation in lines 11-12 of claim 1 requiring “aluminum foil comprises a chromium based protective layer on one side facing inner polymer layer.”
While the reference discloses vapor depositing a trivalent chromium oxide layer (i.e., Cr2O3) on the Al foil, it does not specifically state that the content of trivalent chromium oxide is between 0.5-100% by weight. However, given the disclosure of only depositing a Cr2O3 material onto the Al foil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the Cr2O3 content and minimize the presence of any impurities in the layer in order to achieve optimal corrosion prevention.
JP ‘558 also fails to disclose the use of a “modified polyolefin tie layer” between the Al foil and one of the inner or outer polymer layers (1 and 4 in Fig 1). Instead, the reference discloses the use of polyester (5) and maleic anhydride modified SBS (2) adhesives to adhere the inner and outer layer to the Al layer (Figure 4) or alternatively, the absence of an adhesive between the inner polyolefin layer and the Cr(III) oxide treated Al layer.
EP 1359631 discloses a multilayered Al laminate having a Cr(III) compound layer thereon for encasing battery cells. The reference teaches that an inner layer of the laminate structure is formed from a single or multilayered structure that is preferably a single polypropylene layer or a first maleic-anhydride modified polypropylene formed on the surface of the treated Al layer followed by thermal lamination with an undrawn polypropylene layer (see para [0053]-[0062] and [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene/undrawn polypropylene laminate for the single undrawn polypropylene layer taught by JP’558 in view of the apparent functional equivalence of the two configurations as suggested by EP’631.
Claim 1 includes an additional embodiment wherein an intermediary layer of a polymer is formed between the Al and the inner polymer layer (See lines 5-7 of claim 1). It is noted that EP’631 teaches that the above-noted maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene/undrawn polypropylene laminate can include two or more layers (see para [0065]). Thus, addition of a third polymer layer to either side of the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene layer in this two layer stack would have been obvious. Substitution of the single polypropylene layer taught by JP ‘558 with this three layer polymer structure would have been obvious in view of the functional equivalence of single, dual or multilayered maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene/undrawn polypropylene laminates as suggested by EP’631. The undrawn polypropylene of this three layer stack corresponds to the claimed “inner polymer layer”; the maleic anhydride modified polypropylene corresponds to the claimed “modified polyolefin tie layer”; and a third resin layer added on either side of the maleic anhydride modified polypropylene layer reads on the claimed “intermediary polymer layer.”
Claims 2-3 are met by layer 3b as shown in annotated Figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, JP ‘588 does not disclose an embodiment having two modified polyolefin tie layers in the claimed locations in the multilayered stack. However, EP’631 does suggest the use of multilayered synthetic resin layer on a heat adhesive resin inner layer (see para [0059]). The reference teaches polypropylene as a heat adhesive inner layer (See para [0057]) and teaches that the synthetic resin multilayer can be formed from olefin-based thermal adhesive resins (para [0060]) selected from a group that includes various modified polyolefins (para [0056]-[0057]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to form a three-layer synthetic resin of modified polyolefins to bond a single polyolefin inner layer to the Cr2O3 coated Al layer taught by JP ‘588 in view of the functional equivalence of this structure to the single polyolefin inner layer of JP’588 as suggested by EP’631. A first and third modified polyolefin of this structure would read on the claimed modified polyolefin tie layers with the layer between corresponding to the claimed “intermediary layer.” This reads on at least the embodiment set forth in lines 12-14 of claim 4.
Claims 6-8 are met for the foregoing reasons.
With regard to claim 7, the thickness of the maleic-anhydride modified polyolefin taught by EP’631 is preferably 5-30 micron in thickness (See para [0065]).
With regard to claims 10-11, JP’558 discloses a preferred thickness of 50-100 nm for the Cr2O3 layer (see para [0014]).
Claims 12 and 14 are met for the foregoing reasons.
With regard to claim 13, see para [0037].
With regard to claim 15, the “outer” polyester or polyamide layer of JP’558 is preferably 15-30 microns thick (see para [0022]). It is noted that claim 1 does not require the presence of an intermediary layer in all of its alternative embodiments. Thus, the claim is met by the prior art structure not including an intermediary layer
With regard to claim 16, see para [0032] of JP’558.
With regard to claim 19, see para [0002] and [0007] of JP’558.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 2016-0134636 (see English machine translation) is cited as art of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785