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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 3/31/2026 have been entered.
103 rejection of Claim 1, 5, and 13 and other dependent claims from previous office action has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (CN 109228575A; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1,
Cheng teaches a packaging film (aluminum-plastic film; Paragraph 0005), comprising: a protective layer, a first bonding layer, a metal layer, a second bonding layer, and a sealing layer that are sequentially stacked (protective layer/outer adhesive layer/aluminum foil layer/inner adhesive layer; Paragraph 0008) wherein the protective layer is a single polymer resin layer. Cheng teaches that the protective layer is made of nylon which is a polymer resin layer, and also teaches the use of a single layer (Paragraph 0009). Cheng also teaches that a carbon material is filled within the polymer resin layer (thermally conductive carbon powder/graphite; Paragraph 0009), and the protective layer is directly bonded to the metal layer through the first bonding layer (outer adhesive layer is used to bond the protective layer and the aluminum foil layer; Paragraph 0040).
The layers of Cheng are shown in Figure 1 annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9,
Cheng teaches that the material of the polymer resin layer comprises of nylon (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 11,
Cheng teaches that the thickness of the metal layer (aluminum foil layer) is 20 to 60 um (Paragraph 0016). This range includes the claimed range of 24 to 35 um. Cheng also teaches that the thickness of the sealing layer (heat sealing layer) is 5 to 40 um (Paragraph 0036). This includes the claimed range of 24 to 35 um.
Regarding Claim 12,
Cheng teaches that the sealing layer comprises polypropylene (Paragraph 0009).
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.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Hori et al (JP 2016066546 A; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 3, and Claim 4,
Cheng does not particularly teach that the mass percentage of the carbon material in the protective layer is 5% to 50%.
However, Hori teaches a packaging material, comprising a resin coating layer (Paragraph 0009), and a metal layer (paragraph 0009), along with a sealant layer (Paragraph 0009). Hori teaches that the content of the inorganic carbon nanotubes filler in the resin coating layer is preferably about 30 to 70% by mass, and more preferably about 40 to 60% by mass (Paragraph 0021). This overlaps with the mass percentage of the carbon material in the protective layer from 5% to 50%. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlapping range of carbon material in the protective layer of Cheng for excellent acid resistance and heat dissipation properties (Paragraph 0016).
Claim 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Ootsuki et al (US 20200377690 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Hori teaches a packaging material, comprising a protective layer (Paragraph 0009; resin coating layer and base material layer), a first bonding layer (Paragraph 0037; adhesive layer), a metal layer (paragraph 0009), a second bonding layer (Paragraph 0056; adhesive layer), and a sealant layer (Paragraph 0009) laminated in that order. Hori teaches that the layer comprising carbon material is located on a surface of the polymer resin layer/base material layer.
Hori does not teach that the carbon material is carbon fiber based, and that the carbon fibers are interconnected and woven, and in between the polymer resin layer and first bonding layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
301
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Ootsuki teaches a fire resistant sheet or laminate used in lithium batteries to wrap the outer periphery of the battery cell (Paragraph 0292). Ootsuki also teaches that the laminate consists of a base material which is a cloth type material (Paragraph 0244, 0249). The cloth base material is made of carbon fiber cloth that can be a woven fabric (Paragraph 0252). Ootsuki also teaches the use of adhesive material on atleast one side of the fire-resistant laminate (Paragraph 0277). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a carbon fiber woven cloth as shown in Ootsuki in the carbon material layer or Hori in order to provide sufficient support to additional layers in the packaging material such as fire-resistant layers (Paragraph 0244), and to provide an adhesive layer on the carbon fiber cloth layer as shown in Ootsuki in order to adhere the fire-resistant laminate to the outside of the battery cell (Paragraph 0288).
Regarding Claim 6,
Hori teaches that the resin coating layer which comprises carbon material has a thickness of 1 to 6 µm (Paragraph 0028). This range includes the claimed range of the carbon layer of 2 to 5 µm. Ootsuki also teaches that the base material with the carbon fibers has a thickness of 2 to 1000 um. This range overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlapping thickness range in order to provide sufficient support to additional layers such as fire-resistant layers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng and Hori, further in view of Yang et al (US 20130302605 A1).
Cheng does teach that the carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes but does not teach that the carbon nanotubes are multiwalled nanotubes or single walled nanotubes.
However, Yang teaches a composite carbon nanotube material utilizing single walled and multiwalled nanotubes along with a polyethylene terephthalate substrate (Paragraph 0002, and 0004). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hori and Yang in order to make a composite material with high strength, unique electrical properties and efficient heat conduction (Paragraph 0003). These are beneficial properties for packaging materials as well.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al.
Cheng teaches that the thickness of the protective layer is 1 to 25 um (Paragraph 0034). This range includes the claimed range of 7 to 16 um. Since Cheng encompasses the claimed range of thickness of protective layer, hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a thickness from the overlapping values in order to provide sufficient support and protect the internal structure from impact.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, further in view of Squier et al (US 20060057347 A1).
Cheng does not teach the use of a matte layer, and that the thickness of the layer is 2 to 5 µm. Examiner notes that the instant disclosure does not define the matte layer, or provide any chemical composition for the same.
However, Squier teaches that a matte layer is provided on a polymeric film structure such that it comprises of a polyolefin and a matte producing agent such as silicates, talc, silicon dioxide etc (Paragraph 0035). Squier also teaches that the thickness of the matte film is between 0.5 to 3.8 µm. This range overlaps with the thickness range in the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the packaging film in Hori to include a matte layer of Squier in order to provide a mold-ready film having a sufficiently roughened surface to facilitate sheetability, degassing, and improved label-performance (Paragraph 0036).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al.
Cheng teaches the use of aluminum-plastic film as packaging material for lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0004). The lithium ion battery is akin to an electrochemical apparatus. It is obvious that lithium ion batteries comprise an electrode assembly within the packaging film. Lithium ion batteries find wide application in electronic apparatus such as laptops, phones, electric vehicles etc. Hence, it would be obvious to utilize the battery in electronic apparatus as stated in Claim 16. Cheng also teaches the packaging film comprising a protective layer, a first bonding layer, a metal layer, a second bonding layer, and a sealing layer that are sequentially stacked; wherein the protective layer is a polymer resin layer, and a carbon material is filled within the polymer resin layer, and the protective layer is directly bonded to the metal layer through the first bonding layer (see rejection of Claim 1).
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Kim et al (US 20180166664 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, 15
Cheng teaches the application of the packaging material in a battery but does not teach that the electrochemical apparatus comprises a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate: wherein the positive electrode plate. the separator, and the negative electrode plate are made into the electrode assembly through lamination or winding, and the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-based material.
However, Kim teaches a battery case for a pouch shaped battery having an electrode assembly and an electrolyte contained in a pouch-shaped battery case, made of a laminate sheet including a resin layer and a metal layer, in a sealed state. The electrode assembly, which is mounted in the battery case, may be configured to have a jelly-roll (wound) type structure (Paragraph 0006). Kim also teaches that the negative electrode material is a silicon based alloy (paragraph 0080). An example of silicon based alloy is a composite material of silicon and carbon. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the film of Cheng with the battery structure of Kim in order to create a suitable packaging film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For Claim 1, prior art of Cheng describes a single layer that contains polymer material and carbon material akin to the protective layer. For Claim 5, Ootsuki teaches the use of carbon fiber woven material as a layer to support a fire-resistant packaging material for lithium ion batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights