DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/292,177 filed January 25, 2024.
This is a 371 application also claiming foreign priority.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on August 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all the groups is not burdensome. This is not found persuasive because burden is not the complete threshold for a unity of invention restriction. As established in the restriction requirement, the claims lack a shared special technical feature, rendering a lack of unity and justifying the restriction as submitted. Moreover, the Examiner is open to rejoinder if the elected group is found allowable as well.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 17, 2026.
Claims 1-6 are examined on the merits herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOUN et al (US PGPUB 2021/0020927).
Regarding claim 1, YOUN et al teaches transfer laminate comprising:
a base layer (substrate, paragraph [0021]);
a release layer (acrylic polymer of the acrylic release layer, paragraph [0021]) present in direct contact with one surface of the base layer (“formed on”, per paragraph [0021]); and
a lithium metal (“lithium metal layer”, paragraph [0020]) present on a surface of the release layer opposite to a surface of the release layer in contact with the base layer (paragraph [0020]),
wherein a thickness of the release layer is 1 nm or greater and 1µm or less (0.1 to 1 micron, paragraph [0048]),
wherein a thickness of the transfer laminate is 5 µm or greater and 120 µm or less (paragraph [0054] teaches the lithium metal layer to be 1-25 micron, paragraph [0063] teaches the substrate or base to be 20-50 micron and paragraph [0048] teaches a thickness of the acrylic polymer or release layer of .1-1 micron, rendering a combined thickness between 21.1-76 micron, completely within the claimed range), and
wherein the release layer comprises a non-metallic material (acrylic polymer, paragraph [0021].).
Regarding claim 3, YOUN et al teaches a first adhesive force of a contact surface between the base layer and the release layer is lower than a second adhesive force of a contact surface between the release layer and the lithium metal (Paragraph [00228]-[0029] teaches removing the substrate/base layer from the acrylic release film/release layer, wherein the release layer stays attached to the lithium metal (requiring dissolution of the release film/layer). The removal of the substrate from the release layer while adhesion between the release layer and lithium metal remain is indicative of the described adhesive forces.).
Regarding claim 4, YOUN et al teaches a thickness of the lithium metal is 1 µm or greater and 10 µm or less (paragraph [0054] teaches the lithium metal layer to be 1-20 µm, wherein substantial overlap renders the range anticipated with sufficient specificity).
Regarding claim 5, YOUN et al teaches the release layer comprises an acrylic resin (“acrylic polymer” wherein resin is a polymer, paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 6, YOUN et al teaches the base layer (substrate) comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), poly(methylmethacrylate)(PMMA), polypropylene, polyethylene and polycarbonate (paragraph [0021]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al.
Regarding claim 2, YOUN et al teaches the base layer and release layer are made of the same materials as in the instant application. Specifically, YOUN et al teaches the base/substrate layer to be made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), poly(methylmethacrylate)(PMMA), polypropylene, polyethylene and polycarbonate (paragraph [0021]), just as in paragraph [0053] of the published version of the instant application. Moreover, YOUN et al teaches the release layer to include an acrylic material including PMMA (paragraph [0043]), just as in paragraph [0064]. YOUN et al and the instant application also share the same thickness for the base layer and release layer (paragraphs [0048] and [0063] of YOUN et al and instant, paragraph [0059]-[0060]) It is the position of the Examiner that the use of the same materials, in the same thickness, would render the same adhesive force after the same conditions as claimed are applied. Moreover, as a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise. For at least this reason, YOUN et al renders obvious “after the transfer laminate is left at 80°C for 2 hours, a first adhesive force of a contact surface between the base layer and the release layer is 10 gf/inch or greater and 150 gf/inch or less”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YOUN (US PG PUB 2022/0223847) also teaches at least claim 1 and would be applied in a 102 capacity.
KR102148507B1 teaches the use of a release layer including silicone, melamine and fluorine, as addressed in claim 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights