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 .
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because it does not contain a section under the heading "Brief Description of the Drawings."
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, and 14 are objected to because the phrase "a material from the following list:" is improper Markush language. The phrase should be replaced with --a material selected from the group consisting of--. See MPEP 2117.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The phrase "in particular" renders claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase in each claim are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the application" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of examination: claim 10 is understood to depend from claim 9 (the first claim where the application is mentioned) and claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are not limited to the elements following the phrase "in particular" (since it is Office policy to grant claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 requires the binder layer to have a melting point of less than 100 oC, a limitation already included in independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Language
The "application" recited in claims 9-11 is understood to be an additional layer providing for an improved appearance or feel of the sealing film (see paragraph 0030 on page 5 of the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giles (US 5,871,112).
Giles is directed to an inner seal designed to seal over a container opening (column 1, lines 5-10). The inner seal comprises a porous synthetic backing layer, a foil layer, and a wax layer between the backing and foil layers that holds the backing and foil layers together (column 1, lines 51-60). A preferable material for the backing layer is a low density polyethylene foam (column 2, lines 60-32). The foil layer may be heated via a heat-induction process (column 3, lines 27-31). The wax may be paraffin wax, carnauba wax, or bees wax (column 3, lines 32-37).
The backing layer reads on the cover film of the claims; the wax layer reads on the binding layer of the claims; the foil layer reads on the carrier film of the claims.
Paraffin wax, carnauba wax, or bees wax all have melting points that satisfy the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13.
One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that a foil layer which may be heated by induction is a metal foil and, as such, would inherently have a density satisfying the limitations of claim 3 and a diffusion value for oxygen and water vapor satisfying the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that low density polyethylene foam would inherently have a density satisfying the limitations of this claim.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iizuka (JP 2017-059522).
Iizuka is directed to a laminate used as a lid for a battery casing (paragraphs 0001 and 0076). The laminate comprises, in order: a first base layer, a first adhesive layer, a first corrosion-prevention layer, a stainless steel foil, and a second base layer (paragraph 0008).
In the embodiment of Example 5 (paragraph 0092) the laminate comprises: a first base layer of polypropylene (paragraph 0085), a first adhesive of a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene having a melting point of 80 oC (paragraph 0092), and a second base layer of black polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0086).
The first base layer corresponds to the cover film of the claims; the first adhesive layer corresponds to the binding layer of the claims; the second base layer corresponds to the carrier film of the claims.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Iizuka (JP 2017-059522) as evidenced by SpecialChem, Density of plastics.
Iizuka teaches all the limitations of claims 3 and 6, as outlined above, except the reference does not report the density of the polyethylene terephthalate corresponding to the carrier film of the claims or polypropylene corresponding to the cover film of the claims.
According to SpecialChem Density of plastics, polyethylene terephthalate has a density of 1.3 to 1.4 g/cm3 (page 8) and polypropylene has a density of 0.90 to 0.91 g/cm3 (page 9).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the polyethylene terephthalate and polypropylene of Iizuka to inherently satisfy the limitations of claims 3 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iizuka (JP 2017-059522).
Iizuka teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, except the reference does not report the diffusion value for oxygen or water vapor.
However, the material used by Iizuka in Example 5 is cited by the applicant as a suitable material for the carrier film (see claim 5) and is described in paragraph 0020 of the specification as a material that "meet[s] the desired requirements," with oxygen and water vapor diffusion values cited two paragraphs earlier as one such requirement.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would presume that polyethylene terephthalate would inherently satisfy the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Giles (US 5,871,112).
Giles teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as outlined above, except for teaching the presence of additives in the low density polyethylene foam of the backing layer that corresponds to the cover film of the claims.
However, as a foamed material, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to contain a blowing agent (i.e., an additive) since polymer are typically foamed through the use of blowing agents. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to incorporate a blowing agent into the low density polyethylene to provide a pathway for producing the foam.
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka (JP 2017-059522) in view of Omori (JP 2006-027643) as evidenced by SpecialChem, Density of plastics.
Iizuka is directed to a laminate used as a lid for a battery casing (paragraphs 0001 and 0076). The laminate comprises, in order: a first base layer, a first adhesive layer, a first corrosion-prevention layer, a stainless steel foil, and a second base layer (paragraph 0008). The adhesive layer comprises a polyolefin with a melting point of 50 to 100 oC (paragraph 0018). The second base layer may be formed of a polyolefin, such as oriented polypropylene (paragraph 0060).
While the first and second base layers are mapped to the cover film and carrier film, respectively, in paragraph 15 above, the first and second base layers could just as accurately be mapped to the carrier film and cover film, respectively, and still satisfy the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, with respect to claims 9-11 the first base layer corresponds to the carrier film and the second base layer corresponds to the cover film. As the first base layer of Iizuka is the layer of the lid that can come into contact with the electrolyte etc. (paragraph 0063), second base layer corresponds to the outer layer of the lid.
Iizuka does not teach the addition of an application to the second base layer.
Omori is directed to a container lid having a printed layer formed on its surface made of a heat-expandable ink or varnish (paragraph 0007). The printed layer may be a pattern layer formed using a thermal foaming ink (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the printed layer of Omori to the second base layer of Iizuki to provide the container with an aesthetically pleasing appearance and/or provide information on the contents of the casing.
Regarding claim 10, since polypropylene has a density of 0.90 to 0.91 g/cm3 (page 9 of SpecialChem, Density of plastics), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a layer formed of oriented polypropylene to which a foaming ink is applied to intrinsically satisfy the limitations of this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights