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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 10 withdrawn
Claims 1-2 amended
Claim 7-8 canceled
Claims 1-6, 9 pending
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) 1, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (PG Pub 2018/0034010 A1) in view of Ojiri (PG Pub 2015/0380692 A1) and in further view of Lui (TW 349902, English abstract).
Consider Claim 1, Liao teaches the process of forming an aluminium plastic film packaging (abstract), having aluminum foil layer (40) with two opposite surfaces (figure 3, [0053]), where in the first surface is coated with a polyurethane adhesive (30) (figure 3, [0052]); and the second surface is coated with polyolefin adhesive (60’) (figure 3, [0065]); where on the polyurethane adhesive layer (30) an outer-layer polymer layer (20) (figure 3, [0043]) made from nylon or polystyrene [0044]; and where the polyolefin adhesive layer (60’) is coated with an inner-layer polymer film (70) (figure 3, [0088]) made from polyolefin polymer film [0088]. Liao teaches the outer-layer (20) with thickness between 10-50 micron [0051], and the inner-layer (70) with a thickness 10-80 micron [0090], encompassing a ratio of 1.6-5.5 inner-layer to outer-layer (16 micron inner to 10 micron outer is 1.6; and 55 micron inner to 10 micron outer is 5.5).
Liao does not teach the pasting of the outer-layer polyurethane film.
However, Ojiri is in the prior art of forming a package for a power cell/battery (abstract), teaches the process of pasting onto an aluminum foil, having a polyester adhesive layer, a 20 micron nylon film [0138].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Liao with Ojiri to paste the outer-layer onto the adhesive coated Al foil, to obtain a laminated structure [0138].
The combined Liao (with Ojiri) does not teach the pasting of the inner-layer polyolefin film.
However, Lui is in the process forming a backing compound plastic (abstract), teaches the process of pasting the polyolefin through extrusion process forming a thickness of 20-200 micron (abstract).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Liao (with Ojiri) with Lui to coat the polyolefin with pasting process, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
The combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the further step of aging the adhesive to a temperature of 30-100℃ for 1-200 hours (Ojiri, [0132]), where the adhesive includes polyurethane and polyolefin (Ojiri, [0117]).
The combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the step of aging include multiple heating stages, where the temperature of the initial stages/aging treatment (for example 80℃) are lower than the last stage/heating treatment (for example 120℃), and where the duration of the initial stages/aging treatment (for example 24 hours) are longer than the last stage duration/heating treatment (for example 2 minutes) (Ojiri, [0139]).
Additionally, Ojiri teaches in [0132], when conducting both aging treatment and heating treatment the order of the treatments is not particularly limited, such that the aging treatment is conducted after conducting the heating treatment, to provide with an increase of the film strength, and provide with excellent in durability for a longer time.
Consider Claim 4, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the outer-layer (20) with thickness between 10-50 micron (Liao, [0051]).
Consider Claim 5, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the further step of aging the adhesive to a temperature of 30-100℃ for 1-200 hours (Ojiri, [0132]), where the adhesive includes polyurethane and polyolefin (Ojiri, [0117]).
Consider Claim 6, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the step of aging include multiple heating stages, where the temperature of the initial stages/aging treatment (for example 80℃) are lower than the last stage/heating treatment (for example 120℃), and where the duration of the initial stages/aging treatment (for example 24 hours) are longer than the last stage duration/heating treatment (for example 2 minutes) (Ojiri, [0139]).
Additionally, Ojiri teaches reversing the treating order in [0132], as when conducting both aging treatment and heating treatment the order of the treatments is not particularly limited, such that the aging treatment is conducted after conducting the heating treatment, to provide with an increase of the film strength, and provide with excellent in durability for a longer time.
Consider Claim 9, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the process of punching with punching depth of 5 mm (Liao, Table 1), where the appearance did not change and with good overall evaluation (Liao, Table 1), including no presence of warpage nor holes formed by the punching/breakage.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (PG Pub 2018/0034010 A1) in view of Ojiri (PG Pub 2015/0380692 A1) and in further view of Lui (TW 349902, English abstract), and in further view of Gu (CN 102848587A, English Translated).
Consider Claim 2, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the use of an outer-layer polymer layer (20) (Liao, figure 3, [0043]) made from polystyrene (Liao, [0044]), with thickness between 10-50 micron (Liao, [0051]).
The combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) does not teach the preheating step.
However, Gu is in the prior art of forming polyester film [0015], teaches the preheating of the polyester film to 100-150℃ for 10-60 second [0016]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) with Gu to preheat the outer layer/polyester film, to provide with a desired stretching ratio [0016].
Consider Claim 3, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui and Gu) teaches the previously taught in claim 2.
The combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui and Gu) does not explicitly teach the resulting shrinking rate.
However, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui and Gu) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “preheat the outer-layer polymer film at a temperature between 140° C. and 180° C. for 10 seconds to 30 seconds, with a thickness of the outer-layer polymer film between 20 μm to 25 μm”. Since the “a machine direction shrinkage rate of the outer-layer polymer film is less than or equal to 1%, and a transverse direction shrinkage rate of the outer-layer polymer film is less than or equal to 1%” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “preheat the outer-layer polymer film at a temperature between 140° C. and 180° C. for 10 seconds to 30 seconds, with a thickness of the outer-layer polymer film between 20 μm to 25 μm”, and the combination of the Liao (with Ojiri and Lui and Gu) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Liao (with Ojiri and Lui and Gu) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “a machine direction shrinkage rate of the outer-layer polymer film is less than or equal to 1%, and a transverse direction shrinkage rate of the outer-layer polymer film is less than or equal to 1%” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liao with Ojiri and Lui.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against Ojiri, on the ground that Ojiri does not disclose the claimed setting time for the first aging and the second aging.
However, Ojiri discloses the option of reversing the order where the aging treatment is performed after the heating treatment, leading to having aging treatment after heating treatment, and where the duration of the aging treatment (for example 24 hours) are longer than the heating treatment (for example 2 minutes).
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights