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Claim 10 withdrawn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 1-9 pending and elected
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3 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 2 states “wherein, before the outer-layer polymer film pasting process, the method further includes a preheating process implemented by preheating the outer-layer polymer film”. However, it is unclear how “before” the forming of the “outer-layer polymer film”, using “pasting process”, the “outer-layer polymer film” (which is not deposited yet) is going through the “preheat[ing]” process.
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.
Consider Claim 4, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the outer-layer (20) with thickness between 10-50 micron (Liao, [0051]).
Consider Claims 5 and 7, 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 Claims 6 and 8, the combined Liao (with Ojiri and Lui) teaches the step of aging include multiple heating stages, where the temperature of the initial stages (for example 80℃) are lower than the last stage (for example 120℃), and where the duration of the initial stages (for example 24 hours) are shorter than the last stage duration (for example 2 minutes) (Ojiri, [0139]).
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.
Conclusion
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