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 statements filed 4/7/24, 12/12/24, 5/12/25, 9/26/25, and 4/14/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, the specification does not describe the limitations of the claim to “the water-based and solvent-based coating solution;” “using a combination of Direct coating and Reverse Kiss Coating (RKC) methods;” and “using RKC and Film up/down coating methods.”
The limitation to “the water-based and solvent-based coating solution” is not enabled because the specification does not provide any specific information about the components used in the coating solution. Concerning the Wands factors:
(A): The limitation is extremely broad, as the claim can read on virtually any solution that is both water and solvent-based, and further the examiner notes that water itself is a solvent.
(B): The specification only describes the surface-treated layer as a laundry list of components, including the term “and the like,” that provide corrosion resistance (see [0076] of the published application) but does not discuss any of the precursor materials used to form the layer. Therefore, the nature of the invention is so broad that it could encompass virtually any solution capable of resulting in the described layer.
(D)-(H): While the skilled artisan is capable of providing the elements described in the specification, the quantity of experimentation required to make the claimed surface treatment water-based and solvent-based coating solution is undue since the specification does not provide any direction or working examples to guide the skilled artisan.
The limitations to the combined coating methods not enabled because the specification does not provide any specific information about how the methods are combined. Concerning the Wands factors:
(A): The limitations are extremely broad, as the claim can read on virtually any method that can be considered by those names.
(B): The specification only lists the coating methods, but does not provide any further guidance on parameters for appropriately carrying out the coating methods such as time, thickness, etc.
(D)-(H): While the skilled artisan is capable of performing a coating step, the quantity of experimentation required to combine two different coating methods in one coating step is undue since the specification does not provide any direction or working examples to guide the skilled artisan.
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 5-10 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 5 recites the limitation "the metal raw material" in the first indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a metal raw material is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “a metal raw material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the outer surface adhesive layer" in the third indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since an outer surface adhesive layer is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “an outer surface adhesive layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the outer layer raw material" in the third indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since an outer layer raw material is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “an outer layer raw material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the water-based and solvent-based coating solution" in the first indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a water-based and solvent-based coating solution is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “a water-based and solvent-based coating solution.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first winding" in the first indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a first winding is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “a first winding.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second winding" in the first indented limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a second winding is not previously recited. The limitation will be interpreted as “a second winding.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2025/0105405) in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2003/0180609) and Chun et al. (US 2022/0285763).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a cell pouch film, wherein:
an outer layer, or base layer (10); a barrier layer, or gas barrier layer (20); and a sealant layer (30) are structure in that order (Figure 4, [0038]).
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claims 5-6, Kang is silent on the peeled surface roughness and the specifics of certain method steps. The examiner notes that Kang teaches that the cell pouch film laminate body may be manufactured through a method known in the art, including attaching the outer layer (10) to an upper surface of the gas barrier layer (20) through an adhesive ([0062]). Regarding claim 6, Kang teaches laminating polymer films (12, 14), specifically nylon and polyethylene terephthalate, and then laminating those with the barrier layer (Figure 4, [0042], [0044]).
Yamashita teaches a cell pouch film including a laminated layers having a barrier layer (12) between two additional layers including an outer layer, or substrate layer (11), with adhesive layer (16) and wherein the barrier layer is made of aluminum (Figure 1B, [0095], [0121]), analogous to the barrier layer of Kang (see [0047]-[0054] of Kang).
Yamashita further teaches that the aluminum barrier layer is surface-treated, or conversion treated, on both sides of the barrier layer to prevent delamination and dissolution and corrosion of the surface of the aluminum ([0121]). Yamashita teaches that the surface-treated raw material is dried at a temperature of 180C or above ([0299]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the barrier layer of Kang with the surface treatment as suggested by Yamashita in order to prevent delamination, and dissolution and corrosion of the surface of the layer.
With further regard to claim 5, Kang teaches that an adhesive is used between the barrier layer and outer layer, i.e. and adhesive layer (16b) on one side of the barrier layer (20) with outer layer (10) laminated on top, but is silent on the manner in which the adhesive is applied.
Chun teaches a method of forming a cell pouch including an outer layer (1), barrier layer (3), and sealing layer (5), and further teaches coating an adhesive layer on the barrier layer by applying adhesive to one side of the barrier layer prior to laminating the outer layer ([0104]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known method of coating the adhesive layer of Chun in the method of Kang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I A
With further regard to claim 1, since the cell pouch film of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun is made with the same claimed structure and claimed materials in claimed manner, the examiner finds that the properties of the film, i.e. the surface roughness after peeling, is inherently the same as the claimed surface roughness. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches a pre-molding thickness of 60µm and an edge portion residual thickness of 34µm or greater (Table 2).
With regard to claim 4, since the cell pouch film of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun is made with the same claimed structure and claimed materials in claimed manner, the examiner finds that the properties of the film, i.e. maximum molding depth, is inherently the same as the claimed surface roughness. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regrading claim 7, Yamashita teaches the surface treating method but is silent on the order of application and drying. However, it would have been obvious to treat the surfaces sequentially instead of simultaneously if such a change would reduce the amount of equipment and space needed to surface treat the barrier layer. It has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results per MPEP 2144.05 IV C.
Regarding claims 11-12, Kang teaches a secondary battery packaged with the film as discussed above (Figure 1, [0006], [0109]-[0110]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 2024/0047794).
Nakajima teaches a cell pouch film wherein:
at least an outer layer, or base material layer (51), a barrier layer (52), and sealant layer (53) are structured in that order (abstract, Figure 3), and
an elastic modulus in the MD and TD directions of the base layer is 2.0 GPa to 2.5 GPa, or 2000 to 2500 N/mm2, wherein the elastic modulus is result effective to maintain moderate flexibility and strength in the outer layer (51) ([0059]-[0060]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (JP 2012/238453).
The teachings of Kang, Yamashita, and Chun as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun teaches the method of claim 5 as discussed above. The examiner notes that Kang teaches that the cell pouch film laminate body may be manufactured through a method known in the art, including attaching the outer layer (10) to an upper surface of the gas barrier layer (20) through an adhesive ([0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita teaches that any heating method may be used for the conversion treated layer (15) ([0210]) but is silent on the floating manner.
Fujii teaches a step of surface treating, or forming a chemical conversion treatment layer, of a barrier layer, or aluminum foil layer (13), by blowing air in a floating manner in a dryer (33) (Figure 1, p. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known drying method of Fujii in the method of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I A
With regard to claim 9, Yamashita teaches that the surface treatment step includes applying a first coating by applying a water-based and solvent-based coating solution ([0299]) but is silent on the specific coating methods.
Fujii teaches that the surface treating may be carried out by various methods such as reverse coating, roll coating, and bar coating (p. 3).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known methods of Fujii in the method of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I A
As for claim 10, Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun teaches performing the coating of the outer surface adhesive and outer layer lamination steps but is silent on the sequences and windings of the lamination of the layers.
Fujii teaches performing a first winding step after a first lamination step of forming a layer on the barrier layer (Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun as discussed above and the level of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known method steps of Fujii to form the layers of Kang in view of Yamashita and Chun in order to carry out a method to practice the invention. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known elements to yield predictable results is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
