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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 20, 2024 and January 2, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 26-29 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 26 recites the limitation "the nano ceramic.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the nano ceramic.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-25, 31, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 103507331 A).
Regarding claim 22, Liu teaches a lithium battery encapsulation (“a battery packaging film”) (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Liu teaches the encapsulation includes a middle layer 4 of aluminum foil (“a metal layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051]), a functional treatment layer 3 comprising a first base coating (“a first bonding enhancement layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0050]), a first adhesive layer 2 (“a first bonding layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0052]), a second bonding layer 6 comprising an adhesive (“a second bonding layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0053]), an outer layer 1 (“a first protective layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0048]), and a bottom layer 7 that is a heat-sealing material, a heat-resistant temperature, moisture-proof structure of organic solvent gas and corrosion resistance (“a second protective layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0054]). Liu teaches the order of the layers of the encapsulation are the outer layer 1, the first adhesive layer 2, the functional treatment layer 3, the middle layer 4, a function treatment layer 5 comprising a second base coating having a moisture-resistant barrier structure (see e.g., paragraph [0052]), the second bonding layer 6, and the bottom layer 7 (see e.g., Annotated Figure 4); therefore, Liu meets the claim limitations of “the metal layer having a first surface and a second surface, each of the respective other layers of the packaging film having inner and outer surfaces relative to their general position with respect to the metal layer, the layers being arranged as follows: the inner surface of the first bonding enhancement layer is positioned along the first surface of the metal layer; the inner surface of the first bonding enhancement layer is positioned along the outer surface of the first bonding layer, at least a portion of the first bonding enhancement layer being interposed between the metal layer and the first bonding layer; the inner surface of the first protective layer is positioned along the outer surface of the first bonding layer; the inner surface of the second bonding layer is positioned along the second surface of the metal layer, at least a portion of the second surface of the metal layer being generally opposed from the first surface of the metal layer; the inner surface of the second protective layer is positioned along the outer surface of the second bonding layer; and at least a portion of the second bonding layer being interposed between the metal layer and the second protective layer.”
PNG
media_image1.png
628
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Liu Figure 4 as compared to Applicant’s Figure 4
Regarding claim 23, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the encapsulation includes a function treatment layer 5 comprising a second base coating having a moisture-resistant barrier structure (“a second bonding enhancement layer having an inner and an outer surface”) (see e.g., paragraph [0052]) disposed between the metal layer 4 and the second bonding layer 6 (“he inner surface of the second bonding enhancement layer being positioned along at least a portion of the second surface of the metal layer and between the metal layer and the second protective layer; the inner surface of the second bonding layer is positioned along the outer surface of the second bonding enhancement layer”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 24, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the functional treatment layer 3 comprises a first base coating in which the first base coating includes nano-silicon oxide (“wherein the first bonding enhancement layer comprises nano ceramic”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 25, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the functional treatment layer 5 comprises a second base coating in which the second base coating includes nano-silicon oxide (“wherein the second bonding enhancement layer comprises nano ceramic”) (see e.g., paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 31, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the middle layer 4 is aluminum foil (“wherein the metal layer is a metal”) (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 40, Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery (“a battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Liu teaches the lithium battery cell comprising a positive electrode material, negative electrode material, and liquid organic electrolyte which are then encapsulated in an aluminum-plastic film (“a bare cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Liu teaches the encapsulation includes a middle layer 4 of aluminum foil (“a metal layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051]), a functional treatment layer 3 comprising a first base coating (“a first bonding enhancement layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0050]), a first adhesive layer 2 (“a first bonding layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0052]), a second bonding layer 6 comprising an adhesive (“a second bonding layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0053]), an outer layer 1 (“a first protective layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0048]), and a bottom layer 7 that is a heat-sealing material, a heat-resistant temperature, moisture-proof structure of organic solvent gas and corrosion resistance (“a second protective layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0054]). Liu teaches the order of the layers of the encapsulation are the outer layer 1, the first adhesive layer 2, the functional treatment layer 3, the middle layer 4, a function treatment layer 5 comprising a second base coating having a moisture-resistant barrier structure (see e.g., paragraph [0052]), the second bonding layer 6, and the bottom layer 7 (see e.g., Annotated Figure 4); therefore, Liu meets the claim limitations of “the metal layer having a first surface and a second surface, each of the respective other layers of the packaging film having inner and outer surfaces relative to their general position with respect to the metal layer, the layers being arranged as follows: the inner surface of the first bonding enhancement layer is positioned along the first surface of the metal layer; the inner surface of the first bonding enhancement layer is positioned along the outer surface of the first bonding layer, at least a portion of the first bonding enhancement layer being interposed between the metal layer and the first bonding layer; the inner surface of the first protective layer is positioned along the outer surface of the first bonding layer; the inner surface of the second bonding layer is positioned along the second surface of the metal layer, at least a portion of the second surface of the metal layer being generally opposed from the first surface of the metal layer; the inner surface of the second protective layer is positioned along the outer surface of the second bonding layer; and at least a portion of the second bonding layer being interposed between the metal layer and the second protective layer.”
Liu teaches the main components of the lithium battery are encapsulated in the aluminum-plastic film (“the battery packaging film at least partially wrapping around the bare cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Liu teaches the outer layer is located on the outside (“the battery packaging film at least partially wrapping around the bare cell, the first protective layer being positioned along a side away from the bare cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0075]) and the bottom layer is located below the inner surface of the intermediate layer (next to the cell) (“the second protective layer being positioned along a side facing the bare cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 41, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 40, as previously described.
Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery (LIB) (“wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0004]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 103507331 A) and as evidenced by Bausano (“Melting Temperature of Plastic”).
Regarding claim 36, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the outer layer 1 (“the first protective layer”) comprises a nylon film and the bottom layer 7 (“the second protective layer”) comprises PP or PE. Bausano teaches the melting temperature of nylon ranges 220 to 260 °C, the melting temperature of PP ranges from 160 to 170 °C, and the melting temperature of PE ranges from 105 to 135 °C; therefore, Liu teaches the claim limitation of “wherein a melting point of the first protective layer is higher than a melting point of the second protective layer.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A).
Regarding claim 37, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the thickness of the outer layer is approximately 15 µm to 25 µm (“wherein a thickness of the first protective layer is from about 10 µm to about 30 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0075]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of 15 µm to 25 µm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 38, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the thickness of the bottom layer is about 40 µm to 80 µm (“wherein a thickness of the second protective layer is from about 20 µm to about 80 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0076]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of 40 µm to 80 µm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 39, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu teaches the thickness of the metal layer is 25 µm to 40 µm (“wherein a thickness of the metal layer is from about 25 µm to about 60 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0076]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108336254 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 26, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 24, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein ceramic in the nano ceramic accounts for a percentage of from about 1% to about 60%.
However, Zhang teaches a packaging film (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Zhang teaches the packaging film comprises a copper-aluminum foil composite attached to a nano Al2O3 layer attached to a polypropylene layer (see e.g., paragraph [0007]). Zhang teaches the mass ratio of the nano Al2O3 to polypropylene is 0.1:1 to 0.5:1 (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) in order to produce a heat-insulating film with excellent insulation, cold impact resistance, corrosion resistance, high barrier properties, and high strength (see e.g., paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the mass percentage of the nano material of the base coating of Liu to have a mass ratio of 0.1:1 to 0.5:1 as compared to the other material in the layer, as taught by Zhang, in order to produce a heat-insulating film with excellent insulation, cold impact resistance, corrosion resistance, high barrier properties, and high strength (see e.g., paragraph [0006]).
Claims 27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A) in view of Chen et al. (CN 115461912 A, citations from corresponding US 20230080891 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 27, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 24, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein non-ceramic in the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic accounts for a percentage of from about 10% to about 60%.
However, Chen teaches a packaging film including a protective layer, a first bonding layer, a metal layer. a second bonding layer and a sealing layer (see e.g., Abstract). Chen teaches the protective layer 20 includes a polymer resin layer 21 and a carbon material 22 (see e.g., paragraph [0054]). Chen teaches the carbon material 22 includes at least one of carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers (“a nano thermally conductive non-ceramic”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]). Chen teaches a mass percentage of the carbon material 22 is 5 to 50% in order to allow for enhancing the kinetic performance of the packaging film and the inhibiting of volume swelling (see e.g., paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the mass percentage of the base coating of Liu to be carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers in a mass percentage of 5 to 50%, as taught by Chen, in order to allow for enhancing the kinetic performance of the packaging film and the inhibiting of volume swelling (see e.g., paragraph [0061]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of 5 nm or more and 200 nm or less overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 29, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 24, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic is graphene or carbon nanotubes.
However, Chen teaches a packaging film including a protective layer, a first bonding layer, a metal layer. a second bonding layer and a sealing layer (see e.g., Abstract). Chen teaches the protective layer 20 includes a polymer resin layer 21 and a carbon material 22 (see e.g., paragraph [0054]). Chen teaches the carbon material 22 includes at least one of carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers (“wherein the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic is graphene or carbon nanotubes”) in order to enhance the kinetic performance of the packaging film with their relatively high tensile strength, elastic modulus, oxidation resistance, and wear resistance and low thermal expansion coefficient (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the base coating of Liu to be carbon nanotubes as taught by Chen, in order to enhance the kinetic performance of the packaging film with their relatively high tensile strength, elastic modulus, oxidation resistance, and wear resistance and low thermal expansion coefficient (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 30, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first bonding enhancement layer or the second bonding enhancement layer is from about 1 µm to about 20 µm.
However, Chen teaches a packaging film including a protective layer, a first bonding layer, a metal layer. a second bonding layer and a sealing layer (see e.g., Abstract). Chen teaches the protective layer 20 includes a polymer resin layer 21 and a carbon material 22 (see e.g., paragraph [0054]). Chen teaches the carbon material 22 includes at least one of carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers (“the nano thermally conductive non-ceramic”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]). Chen teaches the thickness of the carbon layer is 2 µm to 5 µm (see e.g., paragraph [0065]) in order to prevent the piercing by sharp objects more effectively and to further increase the puncturing resistance of the packaging film (see e.g., paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the base coating of Liu to be carbon nanotubes with a layer thickness of 2 µm to 5 µm, as taught by Chen, in order to prevent the piercing by sharp objects more effectively and to further increase the puncturing resistance of the packaging film (see e.g., paragraph [0064]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of 2 µm to 5 µm overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 2021/0308988 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 28, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 24, as previously described.
Liu teaches the first and second base coating includes nano-silicon oxide (“wherein the nano ceramic is a mixture of one or more of the following inorganic substances of silicon oxide”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Liu does not explicitly teach the nano ceramic is about 0.1 nm to about 100 nm thickness.
However, Fujiwara teaches a power storage device packaging material with good flexibility and electrolytic solution resistance (see e.g., Abstract). Fujiwara teaches the packaging material comprises a heat-sealable resin layer, gas barrier film layers, and adhesive layers. Fujiwara teaches the gas barrier film layers is formed of an inorganic material such as inorganic oxides such as silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, and titanium oxide (see e.g., paragraph [0088]). Fujiwara teaches the thickness of the gas barrier film is 5 nm or more and 200 nm or less (see e.g., paragraph [0092]) in order to maintain the strength and avoid the development of a defect when subject to a mechanical stress (see e.g., paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the thickness of the nano-silicon oxide of Liu to have thickness of 5 nm or more and 200 nm or less, as taught by Fujiwara, in order to maintain the strength and avoid the development of a defect when subject to a mechanical stress (see e.g., paragraph [0093]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thickness of 5 nm or more and 200 nm or less overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A) in view of Xie (CN 107154468) and as evidenced by Loftis (“How To Choose The Right Aluminum”).
Regarding claim 32, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 22, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the metal layer is formed from metal or from an alloy, each having a strength higher than that of aluminum.
However, Xie teaches packaging materials for batteries and pouch batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Xie teaches the packaging material includes an aluminum foil layer formed of a corrosion-resistant aluminum alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]). Xie teaches the foil material is selected from aluminum, zinc, copper, and manganese alloy (“wherein the metal layer is formed from metal or from an alloy”) (see e.g., Table 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the metal layer of Liu to alloy aluminum with zinc, copper, and manganese, as taught by Xie, in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Loftis teaches alloying aluminum with copper gives the alloy excellent strength, alloying aluminum with manganese enhances its corrosion resistance and strength slightly compared to pure aluminum, and alloying aluminum with zinc give superior strength and durability. Therefore, the metal alloys taught by Liu, as modified by Xie, each have a strength higher than that of aluminum.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 103507331 A) in view of Xie (CN 107154468).
Regarding claim 33, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 31, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the metal layer is a metal layer comprising one of copper foil, zinc, platinum, iron, nickel, titanium, cobalt, manganese, or vanadium; or the metal layer is an alloy layer comprising one or more of the following metals: copper foil, zinc, platinum, iron, nickel, titanium, cobalt, manganese, or vanadium.
However, Xie teaches packaging materials for batteries and pouch batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Xie teaches the packaging material includes an aluminum foil layer formed of a corrosion-resistant aluminum alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]). Xie teaches the foil material is selected from aluminum, zinc, copper, and manganese alloy (“wherein the metal layer is an alloy layer comprising one or more of the following metals: copper foil, zinc, or manganese”) (see e.g., Table 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the metal layer of Liu to alloy aluminum with zinc, copper, and manganese, as taught by Xie, in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 34, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 33, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the alloy layer is an aluminum-copper alloy.
However, Xie teaches the foil material is an aluminum-copper alloy (“wherein the alloy layer is an aluminum-copper alloy”) (see e.g., paragraph [0037]) in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the metal layer of Liu to alloy aluminum with copper as taught by Xie, in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 35, Liu teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 33, as previously described.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the alloy layer is a zinc-manganese alloy.
However, Xie teaches the foil material is an alloy with zinc and manganese (“wherein the alloy layer is a zinc-manganese alloy”) (see e.g., Table 4) in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the metal layer of Liu to alloy zinc and manganese, as taught by Xie, in order to have a packaging material that can maintain normal function for a long time without failure in an environment where they are in direct contact with coolant (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda et al. (US 2017/0092902 A1) teaches a battery packaging material of a first aspect identifiable from the outside has exceptional moldability, insulating properties, and reduced external appearance defects and seal defects (see e.g., Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728