DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/11/2026. Claims 15-23 are new. Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15-23 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15-23 are finally rejected for reasons below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
4. Claims 1, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akita et al. (JP 2011-054563 A) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2000-123799 A), Akita (US 2012/0135301), Yoshida (JP 05-032759), Watanabe (US 2004/0241541), and Cho (US 2012/0156551).
Regarding claim 1, Akita discloses a packaging material for an electrochemical cell ([0011]), comprising a base material layer (11b) including a stretchable nylon film such as polyamide resin (i.e. stretched polyamide film, [0040]). Akita discloses that the base material layer (11) is the outermost layer and is exposed to outside of the packaging material ([0031] and Fig. 1). Akita discloses a matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) is formed on the upper surface of the base material layer ([0023]). Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) is in contact with the base material layer (11) ([0023] and Fig. 1). Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) increases the slippery of the surface of the packaging material for the electrochemical cell (i.e. the base material protective layer protects the base material layer, [0024]). Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes a urethane type olefin type material (i.e. urethane resin) and silica type material (i.e. filler) ([0037]). Akita discloses a thermoadhesive resin layer (i.e. sealant layer, 15) is the innermost layer ([0051]). Akita discloses that a metal foil layer (12) is interposed between the base material layer (11) and the thermoadhesive resin layer (i.e. sealant layer, 15) (Fig. 1). Akita discloses that an adhesive layer is colored by a pigment ([0014 and 0033]). Akita discloses that the base material layer adheres to the metal foil layer through the adhesive layer by a dry lamination method ([0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes silica-based material (i.e. filler) ([0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes a lubricant ([0024]).
Regarding claim 13, refer to feature (c) above.
Regarding claims 15, and 16, the thickness of the base material layer is 25 um [0061].
Regarding claims 19, 20, the second pigment is TiO2 in an amount of 15 wt% [0064].
Regarding claim 1, Akita is silent as to the claim limitation below:
(a) “The base material protective layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 microns”
(b) “a filler having a particle diameter of 0.8 um or more when measured based on a laser diffraction method”
(c) “a content of the filler of-included in the base material protective layer is in a range of 3% by mass to 30% by mass.”
(d) “the base material protective layer contains a urethane resin formed from at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyester polyol and an acrylic polyol, each of which contains a group having a hydroxyl group in the side chain thereof, and the urethane resin includes an isocyanate curing agent and the urethane resin includes an isocyanate curing agent.”
Regarding (a), Tanaka teaches a packaging material used for a secondary battery ([0008]). Tanaka teaches that the packaging material comprises of a stretched film (i.e. base material layer) having at least a coating layer (i.e. base material protective layer) ([0010]). Tanaka teaches that the coating layer is on the outermost surface of the packaging material ([0009]). Tanaka teaches that the packaging material is laminated with an urethane-based dry laminating adhesive ([0011]). Tanaka teaches that the coating layer (i.e. base material protective layer) is selected from a urethane resin ([0010]). Tanaka teaches the thickness of the coating layer (base material protective layer) is 1 to 10 microns ([0015]). Tanaka teaches that the desired thickness of the coating layer is critical in order to prevent pinholes and improve performance of the battery ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to acknowledge a coating layer with the claimed thickness is used in a packaging material in order to prevent pinholes and improve performance of the battery as taught by Tanaka ([0015]). A person of the ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the claimed thickness of the protective layer is well-known in order to improve the safety of the battery and would provide the expected results of doing so (KSR).
Regarding (b), Akita does not disclose “a filler having a particle diameter of 0.8 um or more when measured based on a laser diffraction method”. Akita ‘301 teaches a base layer 11 comprising a matte varnish layer 11a formed on a base polyester layer 11b. The matte look (matting effect) of the matte varnish layer 11a can be adjusted by adjusting the particle diameter and added amount of the matte material that is included in the matte varnish material [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size of the silica, as taught by Akita ‘301, for the benefit of adjusting the matting effect of the matte silica layer.
Regarding (c), “a content of the filler of-included in the base material protective layer is in a range of 3% by mass to 30% by mass”, Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes a silica type material (i.e. filler) ([0037]). Akita discloses that a matte varnish is obtained by adding an appropriate amount of a matting agent such as silica-based material to a polyurethane material ([0037]). Further, Akita ‘301 teaches the matte look (matting effect) of the matte varnish layer 11a can be adjusted by adjusting the particle diameter and added amount of the matte material that is included in the matte varnish material [0039]. Therefore establishing that the amount of silica (i.e. filler) in the base material protective layer is a result effective variable (adding appropriate amount) that should be optimized (see MPEP 2144.05 Part II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation). It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05.
Although Akita does not explicitly disclose that the content of the filler is in a range of 3% by mass to 30% by mass, it would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of silica (i.e. filler) in order to achieve desirable matting effect, which is used to protect the base material protective layer. The Examiner notes that the matting agent filler is an additive to the polyurethane layer, and hence an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to add the filler in an amount of less than 50 wt%.
Regarding (d), Yoshida teaches a urethane resin comprising an adhesive having excellent weather resistance flexibility. It contains polyisocyanate as a curing agent, and a polyhydric hydroxyl compound at a ratio of 9:1 to 1:9. See Abstract. The composition uses acrylic polyol (see Example 1).
Yoshida clearly teaches that the NCO/OH ratio is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a polyisocyanate as a curing agent and adjust its amount to the polyurethane of Akita, as taught by Yoshida, for the benefit of having excellent weather resistance flexibility.
Regarding claim 1, Akita discloses a pigment in an adhesive layer, but does not disclose a first pigment of a first color in a base material protective layer. Watanabe teaches a battery casing having an outer plastic protective layer 1 made of polyurethane [0059]. The polyurethane may comprise a pigment incorporated therein to adjust the color of the plastic protective layer [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add color to the outer matte varnish layer of Akita, as taught by Watanabe, depending on the aesthetic requirements of Akita’s battery.
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe teaches the polyurethane emulsion may comprise known additives and aids incorporated therein as necessary. Examples of these additives and auxiliaries employable herein include pigments, plasticizers, fire retardants, organic and inorganic fillers, reinforcing agents, gelling inhibitors, thickening agents, viscosity adjustors, antistatic agents, surface active agents (leveling agent, anti-foaming agent, dispersion stabilizer, blocking inhibitor), oxidation inhibitors, light-stabilizers, and ultraviolet absorbers [0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add fillers to the polyurethan base material protective layer of Akita, as taught by Watanabe, for the benefit of attaining desirable properties.
Regarding claim 1, the base material layer has a side including a second pigment of a second color, and the first pigment of the first color of the base material protective layer is different from the second color, to cause the second color to be exposed in a defective portion around the first color of the base material protective layer, the defective portion being generatable on the base material protective layer serving as the outermost layer, in a stretching of the base material protective layer is stretched along with the base material layer, the stretching resulting in a difference in color between the defective portion in the base material protective layer and other portions of the base material protective layer on which defective portions are not generated, the difference being optically identifiable, Cho teaches a secondary battery, whereby external defects generated in the packing case for a battery may be identified [0009]. The secondary battery comprises an outside layer having one or more layers formed on the metal layer, wherein the outside layer having one or more layers comprises at least one colored layer [0011]. The secondary battery includes: examining an outer side of a packing case for a battery; detecting a defect due to a color difference on the outer side of the packing case for a battery; and processing the outer side of the packing case for a battery on which the defect is detected [0032]. The colored layers having different colors included in the outside layer are to have colors complementary to each other so that defects may be easily detected when the defects occur [0083]. Refer to figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the colors of the base layer and the base material protective layer of Akita of different colors, as taught by Cho, for the benefit of easily detecting external defects.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa Akita et al. (JP 2011/054563 A) in view of Katsumi Tanaka et al. (JP 2000123799 A), Yoshida (JP 05-032759), Watanabe (US 2004/0241541), and Cho (US 2012/0156551) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 7,285,334 B1 of record).
Regarding claim 7, Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes a lubricant ([0024]).
Akita is silent to the claim limitation below:
“the lubricant includes fatty acid amide”
However, Yamashita teaches a similar battery packaging materials comprising various layers (e.g. Col.3/L5-14 and abstract). Yamashita teaches a lubricant containing a fatty acid amide (Yamashita: Col. 60/L33-43). It is known in the art that the fatty acid amide is a type of a lubricant.
It would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the lubricant of Akita with the fatty acid amide lubricant of Yamashita as the lubricants are functional equivalent and serve the same purpose with a reasonable expectation of similar results MPEP 2123.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa Akita et al. (JP 2011/054563 A) in view of Katsumi Tanaka et al. (JP 2000123799 A), Yoshida (JP 05-032759), Watanabe (US 2004/0241541), and Cho (US 2012/0156551) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ibaraki (JP 2010-194759).
Regarding claim 17, Akita modified by Tanaka, Yoshida, Watanabe, and Cho does not teach wherein the base material layer includes a filler in a range of 1% to 50 % by mass of the base material layer, and regarding claim 18, Akita modified by Tanaka, Yoshida, Watanabe, and Cho does not teach wherein the base material layer includes a filler in a range of 5% to 20 % by mass of the base material layer. Ibaraki teaches a battery packaging base material layer comprising resin A containing an antioxidant, a heat stabilizer, a light stabilizer, a release agent, a lubricant, a pigment, a flame retardant, a plasticizer, and an antistatic agent depending on the purpose. It is also possible to add an appropriate amount of antibacterial and antifungal agents (page 6 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add fillers in appropriate amounts to the base material layer of Akita, as taught by Ibaraki, for the benefit of attaining desirable properties.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa Akita et al. (JP 2011/054563 A) in view of Katsumi Tanaka et al. (JP 2000123799 A), Yoshida (JP 05-032759), Watanabe (US 2004/0241541), and Cho (US 2012/0156551) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2009/0191448).
Regarding claim 21, Akita modified by Tanaka, Yoshida, Watanabe, and Cho does not teach the material protective layer has a glass transition temperature of 0 °C to 60 °C, and regarding claim 22, Akita modified by Tanaka, Yoshida, Watanabe, and Cho does not teach wherein the material protective layer has a glass transition temperature of 5 °C to 20 °C. Yamamoto teaches a battery package covering material containing a curable polyurethane resin which is the insulating shape-retaining polymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of, preferably 45 to 130.degree. C., more preferably 65 to 120.degree. C., further preferably 75 to 110.degree. C., as measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) [0079].
It is preferred that the covering material has an excellent impact resistance and an excellent mechanical strength in a usual operation and, conversely, in an unusual operation, the covering material easily breaks open to permit gas generated from the battery to easily go out of the battery pack. With respect to the shape-retaining polymer constituting the above covering material, a curable polyurethane resin is preferably used [0080].
For meeting the above requirement, it is preferred that the covering material including the shape-retaining polymer has a glass transition temperature which is equal to or higher than the temperature in a usual operation of the battery pack, and which is equal to or lower than the temperature in an unusual operation [0081].
When the glass transition temperature is lower than 45.degree. C., the glass transition temperature of the covering material including the shape-retaining polymer is possibly lower than the temperature in a usual operation, and thermal motion of the polymer constituting the shape-retaining polymer in a usual operation is hardly suppressed, so that it is difficult to keep the hardness, thereby disadvantageously making it difficult to achieve an excellent mechanical strength [0082].
On the other hand, when the glass transition temperature is higher than 130.degree. C., the glass transition temperature of the covering material including the shape-retaining polymer is possibly higher than the temperature in an unusual operation, and thermal motion of the polymer constituting the shape-retaining polymer in an unusual operation is suppressed, so that the covering material hardly breaks open, thereby disadvantageously making it difficult to permit gas generated in an unusual operation to quickly go out of the battery pack [0083].
For example, polyurethane of Example 7 has a glass transition temperature of 40 C. See Table 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form and adjust the Tg of polyurethane of Akita modified by Tanaka, Yoshida, Watanabe, and Cho, as taught by Yamamoto, for the benefit of attaining good mechanical strength.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 2/11/2026 are addressed below:
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to claim 1 limitation (b), Applicant argues that Akita ‘301 is silent to any numeric value of particle diameter. Applicant argues that Akida ‘301 has not necessarily established that the particle diameter is a result effective variable. Applicant asserts that there may be a near infinite number of discrete particle diameters of the filler such that Akita ‘301 does not invite experimentation to reach the claimed range. Page 6-7 of Arguments.
In response, Akita ‘301 teaches a base layer 11 comprising a matte varnish layer 11a formed on a base polyester layer 11b. The matte look (matting effect) of the matte varnish layer 11a can be adjusted by adjusting the particle diameter and added amount of the matte material that is included in the matte varnish material [0039]. Akita ‘301 clearly teaches that matte particle diameter is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size of the silica, as taught by Akita ‘301, for the benefit of adjusting the matting effect of the matte silica layer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that there may be a near infinite number of discrete particle diameters of the filler, and that the maximum particle diameter possible would be the thickness of base layer. However, the Examiner further points out that the Applicant’s claimed range of the particle size of “0.8 um or more” has no upper limit, and hence would also be met by infinite particle diameters.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to claim 1 limitation (c), Applicant argues that Akita ’301 is silent as to any numeric value of a content of the filler. Applicant argues that Akida ‘301 has not necessarily established that the particle diameter is a result effective variable. Applicant asserts that there may be a near infinite number of discrete particle diameters of the filler such that Akita ‘301 does not invite experimentation to reach the claimed range. Pages 8-9 of Arguments.
In response, Akita discloses that the matte varnish layer (i.e. base material protective layer) includes a silica type material (i.e. filler) ([0037]). Akita discloses that a matte varnish is obtained by adding an appropriate amount of a matting agent such as silica-based material to a polyurethane material ([0037]). Further, Akita ‘301 teaches the matte look (matting effect) of the matte varnish layer 11a can be adjusted by adjusting the particle diameter and added amount of the matte material that is included in the matte varnish material [0039]. Therefore establishing that the amount of silica (i.e. filler) in the base material protective layer is a result effective variable (adding appropriate amount) that should be optimized (see MPEP 2144.05 Part II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation). It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05.
Although Akita does not explicitly disclose that the content of the filler is in a range of 3% by mass to 30% by mass, it would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of silica (i.e. filler) in order to achieve desirable matting effect, which is used to protect the base material protective layer. The Examiner notes that the matting agent filler is an additive to the polyurethane layer, and hence an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to add the filler in an amount of less than 50 wt%. Hence, there would not be a near infinite number of discrete contents.
Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Cynthia Walls whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751