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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
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, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doi (JP2021002426).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Doi teaches battery casing film comprising fire-resistant layer 15 and metal layer 12 (paragraph [0012], Figure 3). The fire-resistant layer comprises a solid flame retardant (paragraph [0053]). The metal layer is made from aluminum (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Doi teaches adhesive layer 14 between fire-resistant layer 15 and metal layer 12 (Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (JP2021002426).
Doi is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 3, Doi fails to teach a thickness for the metal layer as claimed.
However, Doi discloses the thickness is not limited and by having a metal layer, the pinhole resistance of the battery's outer film is improved and it is possible to prevent water vapor, oxygen, light, etc. from entering the inside of the battery (paragraph [0067]). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the pinhole resistance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness in Doi to obtain the desired pinhole resistance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 5, Doi teaches wherein the adhesive layer includes fluorine propylene copolymers, i.e. polypropylene (paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2021/0384515).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Zhao et al. teaches a current collector, i.e. material comprising a functional film layer and metal layers provided on an upper surface and a lower surface of the functional film layer, where the functional film layer includes a fire retardant (See Abstract), such as magnesium hydroxide, zinc borate, ammonium polyphosphate, etc. (paragraph [0010]) which are solid and wherein the metal layer(s) is aluminum (paragraph [0019]).
However, the recitation in the claims that the material is “an exterior material for battery module or battery pack” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Zhao et al. disclose material as presently claimed, it is clear that the material of Zhao et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. an exterior material for battery module or battery pack, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights