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 .
Claim Objections
The previous claim 12 objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 depends on claim 13 which is a battery, however, claim 17 discloses the type of electric aircraft engine which does not further limit the battery. Thus, claim 17 fails to further limit claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Churchill (US 2021/0288362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Churchhill discloses a laminated film ([0039] laminating the layers) for packaging of pouch-type battery cells ([0022] pouch cell battery and [0021] plurality of cell arrays) , the laminated film comprising a plurality of layers including: a first polymer layer ([0033] first integrity layer 84 is a polymer mat), a second polymer layer ([0033] second integrity layer 86 is a polymer mat), a metal barrier layer ([0055] where a heat spreading layer comprises aluminum) disposed between the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer ([0059] multiple layers so any one of the interior heat spreading layers is the metal barrier layer between the outermost first and second integrity layers), characterized in that the layers further include a heat spreading layer (Fig. 3, #63) made of a thermally conductive material ([0055]), wherein the heat spreading layer is integrated within the laminated film such as to be disposed between the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer([0059] multiple layers, any one of the other interior heat spreading layers would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the heat spreading layer is made from a carbon material ([0028]).
Regarding claim 4 wherein the heat spreading layer has a thickness between 0.5 µm and 200 µm ([0029] 25.4-127 µm).
Regarding claim 5 wherein the heat spreading layer (63) is laminated on both of its opposite sides to adjacent layers of the plurality of layers of the laminated film ([0039] layers are laminated).
Regarding claim 6 wherein the first polymer layer is made from polypropylene and/or the second polymer layer is made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0034], either is PET).
Regarding claim 7 wherein the heat spreading layer is disposed between the metal barrier layer and the first polymer layer ([0059] multiple layers so at least one of the heat spreading layers would be located as claimed).
Regarding claim 8 wherein the layers further include a nylon layer ([0059] multiple layers, [0034] one has nylon).
Regarding claim 9 wherein the first polymer layer is adapted to form an inner layer of a pouch of a pouch-type battery cell and the second polymer layer is adapted to form an outer layer of a pouch of a pouch-type battery cell ([0072]).
Regarding claim 10 A pouch-type battery cell ([0049]) comprising an electrode assembly, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a cathode, an anode and a separator [0050], and wherein the electrode assembly is accommodated within a pouch made from a laminated film according claim 1 ([0072]).
Regarding claim 11 The battery comprising at least one pouch-type battery cell according to claim 10 ([0049] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 12 wherein the battery further comprises a thermal management system adapted to control temperature of the at least one pouch-type battery cell, said thermal management system including active cooling means and/or passive cooling means ([0059] multiple layers so any of the thermal management groups would meet this, alternatively, [0041] phase change materials is included to heat/cool).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, the battery of claim 11, wherein the battery is adapted to drive an electric aircraft engine…and the disclosure of the type of engine ([0003] known applications of batteries to provide power to motor applications). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II. Churchill discloses the battery of claim 11, batteries are known to be used for motor applications and thus is capable of being used as intended. The type of electrical aircraft engine used does not add further structure to the battery itself.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 2021/0288362 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, wherein the heat spreading layer has a thermal conductivity that is larger than 200 W/(m K); larger than 1000 W/(m K) ([0028] 100-6K W/mK). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 2021/0288362 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yeow et al. (US20150214586).
Regarding claim 15, Churchill discloses the heat spreading layer with the carbon material which includes graphene, graphite ([0055]) but does not explicitly disclose that the layer comprises a pyrolytic carbon material.
Yeow discloses high power battery cells having improved cooling (title) where the themal management utilizes pyrolytic graphite (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heat spreading layer of Churchill such that the material is a pyrolytic carbon material as taught by Yeow because it has a low density and an ultra-high in plane thermal conductivity which allows for rapidly conducting, spreading and heat dissipation ([0040]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 2021/0288362 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Levin (US20200185668).
Regarding claim 16, Churchill discloses the laminated film comprising nylon-6 ([0034]) but does not explicitly disclose that the nylon layer comprises oriented nylon (ONY). Note that nylon-6 is primarily the nylon used to produce biaxially oriented polyamide films due to easier processing.
Levin discloses pouch cells (abstract) utilizing oriented nylon ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the laminated film of Churchill such the nylon is oriented nylon as taught by Levin because the combination of known elements (utilizing oriented nylon) to also form laminates for pouch cells is well known and well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Churchill describes a different structure consisting of a separate thermal management multilayer sheet that is applied to an already manufactured battery cell or placed between individual cell in contrast to the claimed invention which addresses intra-cell thermal management. Additional arguments were raised stating that the specific citations to Churchill reveal the flawed interpretation which incorrectly assumes that Churchill’s aluminum heat-spreading layer simultaneously functions as both the heat spreading layer and the metal barrier layer. Applicant also argues that reliance on [0059] of Churchill is problematic as it describes a fire-resistant composite having “multiple layers” which exist within a separate component that is placed between the cells, not integrated within the packaging of the individual cells. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Indeed, the independent claims pertain to “a laminated film for packaging of pouch-type battery cells”, however, broadest reasonable interpretation of the film also includes the thermal management of Churchill. Intra-cell thermal management is not claimed nor any additional structural limitation that would necessarily require the narrowed interpretation of ‘a laminated film for packaging of pouch-type battery cells’ as argued. Claim 1 merely requires a laminated film and Churchill’s disclosure addresses that in addition to the fact that the reference explicitly states that the multilayer sheet is needed to form the cell assembly for a battery ([0046]). Furthermore, the claims are directed to a product, how the layers are formed (i.e. the thermal management multilayer sheet being applied after to an already manufactured cell) does not provide any patentable weight.
Regarding the argument ‘…simultaneously functions as both the heat spreading layer and metal barrier layer…” is not persuasive as the examiner is relying on multiple layers and not the same layer. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret one layer as the heat spreading layer and the other as the metal barrier layer as set forth above and the previous rejection.
Regarding the argument of the layers not being integrated within the packaging of the individual cells, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the packaging is not limited to the particular placement as argued. The claims as written are interpreted such that the packaging includes the multiple layers. Absent any additional structure that would require a narrowed interpretation of the pouch, the Churchill reference meets the structure claimed as discussed in the body of the Office Action.
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 SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights