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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s only arguments are directed to the newly claimed packaging tension. Claiming the properties of known materials is not grounds for patentability. See MPEP 2112 I. Douke discloses that polypropylene is present in 50-100 mol% and polyethylene is present in 50-100 mol% which are the same materials and ranges present in the instant specification.
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 1-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the packing layer comprising…a first packaging layer” in lines 5-6, and the claim also recites “the folded packaging layer including two first packaging layers” in lines 11-12 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douke (US 2015/0372263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Douke discloses an apparatus comprising: a packaging bag body comprising a sealing edge to form a case shape (paragraph 320), where the sealing edge forms a top and side edges (see Figure 3); wherein the packaging bag body comprises a base material (protection) layer 1; a metal layer 3, and a sealant (packaging) layer 4 stacked in sequence (see Figure 1 and paragraph 70), wherein the melting point of the sealant layer 4 is 90-245 °C (paragraph 117), and wherein the packaging layer 4 is on the inside and closest to the battery (see Figure 3). The limitations pertaining to the folding step are considered product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113 I. It is the Office’s position that the claimed structure is taught by Douke since the two first packaging layers of the folded packaging layer are connected to each other to form the top sealing edge and the side sealing edges as seen in Figure 3. It should also be noted that the USC 112 rejection above obfuscates the limitation of the two first packaging layers. Further, the claimed “packaging tension” is considered a property of the material and structure—material and structure that are met by Douke. Something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property. See MPEP 2112 I. Douke discloses that polypropylene is present in 50-100 mol% and polyethylene is present in 50-100 mol% which are the same materials and ranges present in the instant specification.
Regarding claims 2-4, Douke discloses that the sealant layer comprises random (atactic) propylene and ethylene (paragraph 106).
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 10, Douke discloses that the sealant layer 4 comprises a first sealant layer 4a and a second sealant layer 4b (paragraph 201). Douke discloses that all the layers are comprised of two layers as shown in the Figures. Douke discloses that the melting point of the second sealant layer 4b is higher than 130 °C (paragraph 218). Douke discloses four sealant layers (paragraph 221).
Regarding claim 6, Douke discloses that the second sealant layer 4b comprises polypropylene (paragraph 212).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Douke discloses that the first and second sealant layers are adjacent and in contact (paragraph 127). Since either layer can be considered the first or second, either order is possible.
Regarding claim 11, Douke discloses that the sealant layer is 12-120 microns (paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 12, Douke discloses an adhesive (binding) layer between the sealant layer and metal layers (paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 13, Douke discloses an apparatus comprising: a battery enclosed in a bag (paragraph 391), the bag comprising a base material (protection) layer 1; a metal layer 3, and a sealant (packaging) layer 4 stacked in sequence (see Figure 1 and paragraph 70), where the sealing edge forms a top and side edges (see Figure 3); wherein the melting point of the sealant layer 4 is 90-245 °C (paragraph 117). The claimed “packaging tension” is considered a property of the material and structure—material and structure that are met by Douke. Something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property. See MPEP 2112 I. Douke discloses that polypropylene is present in 50-100 mol% and polyethylene is present in 50-100 mol% which are the same materials and ranges present in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 14, Douke discloses that the battery is sealed in the packaging (paragraph 58). It is the Office’s position that the apparatus would have the same properties because it is the same claimed materials. See MPEP 2112 I.
Regarding claim 15, Douke discloses an electric car (paragraph 2).
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights