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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 10-14, and 19-21 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/1/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
First, the Applicant argues about the criticality for the combination of (a) “the substrate layer consists of polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide,…wherein a melting temperature of the substrate is from 290 to 350 °C; and (b) an inner layer consisting of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting temperature of 255 °C. (P4-5 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons as follows:
1) The instant disclosure provides the inner layer 18 contains PET or copolymer thereof and has a melting peak temperature in the range of 160 to 280°C, the packaging material 20 achieves the heat resistance required for a packaging material of the power storage device 100 (all-solid-state battery) used at a temperature of, for example, 100 to 150°C . In addition, since the substrate layer 11 has a melting peak temperature higher than that of the inner layer 18, it is possible to prevent the appearance of the packaging material 20 from being deteriorated due to the melting of the substrate layer 11 (outer layer) during heat sealing ([0033]), which means the inner layer does not need to have a melting temperature of 255°C as argued to achieve the heat resistance thus sealing strength, because the inner layer can have a melting peak temperature in the range of 160 to 280°C. In the meantime to achieve good appearance evaluation results, the substrate layer does not have to be polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide and having a melting temperature from 290 to 350°C because it is possible to prevent the appearance of the packaging material from being deteriorated as long as the substrate layer 11 has a melting peak temperature higher than that of the inner layer. Thus the criticality argument of a) and b) raised by Applicant is not actually supported by the instant disclosure.
2) Since cited primary reference Kazuhiko discloses that polyethylene terephthalate could potentially be used for the inner layer (sealant layer 5, [0058] and [0063]), and nylon 46 as an example of polyamide ([0016]) could potentially be used for the substrate layer ([0014]), Kazuhiko encompasses the claimed combination of a) a substrate of polyamide together with b) an inner layer of polyethylene terephthalate which as further evidenced by Table 2 showing polyethylene terephthalate has a melting point of 255°C. Even though the polyamide might have a wider melting temperature range to choose from, a skilled artisan would select the high melting point polyamide for the substrate (nylon 46 melting point of 295°C), but not nylon 6 (melting point of 225°C), because Sasayama teaches that it is necessary that the material used for the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) have a melting temperature higher than that of the inner thermoplastic resin layer (1) of the laminate so that the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) can remain intact during the melt-adhesion (Ln31-36/Col 9).
3) Further, since the outer electrically insulating material layer can remain intact as Sasayama taught when the condition is met (Ln31-36/Col 9), a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect based on an intact substrate layer, an intact sealing strength along with same visual results of appearance presented in Table 1 of the instant disclosure would be met, especially in light of the specification lacking any objective measurements of determining relative differences of visual observation. For example, it is unclear how much discoloration is needed in order to be considered discolored. How large of an area needs to have melted in order to be considered as melting was found etc. Thus, the superiority argument is not persuasive because not only the selection is obvious based on Kazuhiko in view of Sasayama , but also the results are not unexpected as taught by Sasayama.
4) The Examiner further notes that secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. The showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (see MPEP 716.02 (d)); and to be of probative value, any secondary evidence must be related to the claimed invention (nexus required) (see MPEP 716.01(b)). The Examiner respectfully submits that the evidence cited by Applicant (Tables 1-2) to support unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the criticality of combined limitations a) and b) as argued, because: i) all Examples presented in Table 1 showing a substrate layer with melting peak temperature of 290 or 300 °C, which is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range of a melting temperature of the substrate layer from 290 to 350 °C; ii) none of the Comparative Examples using both PET as the inner layer and polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide as the substrate layer, i.e., the Comparative Example 1 using PP as the inner layer not PET as required, and the Comparative Example 2 using PET as the substrate layer not polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide as required; thus, iii) the evidence presented does not support the criticality argument.
Therefore, this whole criticality argument is not found persuasive.
Second, the Applicant alleges that the Office evaluated rebuttal evidence against its conclusion of obviousness instead of evaluating based on in re Piasecki. (P5-6 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that: a) Kazuhiko includes polyamide for the substrate layer ([0014]); b) Kazuhiko expressly lists Nylon 46 as polyamide film for substrate layer ([0016]); and c) Kazuhiko discloses that polyethylene terephthalate could potentially be used for the inner layer (sealant layer 5, [0058] and [0063]) and as further evidenced by Table 2 (Table 2.3, Polymer Blends and Composites-Chemistry and Technology 2017 John Wiley & Sons) showing polyethylene terephthalate has a melting point of 255°C. Therefore, in view of the analysis presented in the above First section, the rebuttal evidence has been fully considered and evaluated based on in re Piasecki.
This allegation is not supported and also found unpersuasive in view of the First section above.
Third, the Applicant argues that none of the cited references adequately discloses the problem and configuration of the claimed subject matter. (P6-8 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits the claim language does not include “the problem” term. Since the cited references render obvious the claimed packaging material’s structure, as set forth above, and also teaches the benefit that the package material substrate layer remain intact when the substrate layer has a melting temperature higher than that of the inner thermoplastic resin layer, the configuration of the claimed package material would be expected to arrive at, and its superior results would be expected to achieve by a skilled artisan based on the combined teaching from the cited references.
Regarding each argued reference, the Examiner further responds as follows:
The rejection of record to claim 1 was based on Kazuhiko in view of Muggli and further in view of Sasayama.
Kazuhiko: Applicant first argues that the PET mentioned in [0063] as polyester resin for sealant layer ([0058]) is also used in the substrate layer ([0014-0015]) and there is no mention of the melting point of these PETs.
Examiner respectfully submits that Kazuhiko’s disclosure embraces the selection of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) to form the sealant layer 5 ([0063] and [0058]) and the selection of nylon 46 to form the substrate layer ([0014] and [0016]); and the melting points being considered as inherent properties as set forth above in the First section respectively.
Muggli: Applicant further argues that while Muggli teaches that inner polymeric sealant layer 111 of FIG. 10 is polyethylene terephthalate or polyamide (claim 10 and Last Para/P35), but specifies that “the melting point of the inner polymer sealant layer is at least 90°C, preferably at least 120°C,” which is outside the melting point range of the sealant layer of the claimed subject matter.
Examiner respectfully submits that Muggli teaches the benefits of the hot melt polymer tab seal areas being much better than the conventional tab seal areas (2nd Para/P36) by using polyethylene terephthalate as the hot melt inner polymeric sealant layer (claim 10 and Last Para/P35). A skilled artisan would have found it further obvious to use polyethylene terephthalate for the sealant layer. Muggli’s teaching of at least 90°C, preferably at least 120°C for the inner polymer sealant layer encompasses the claimed “having a melting temperature of 255 °C”. Thus, Muggli should not be considered as outside of the claimed melting point range of the sealant layer, as Applicant argues.
Sasayama: Applicant argues while Sasayama lists polyamide resin and polyphenylene sulfide as electrical insulating material layers (3) and specifically exemplifies the melting point of polyphenylene sulfide, it does not disclose the melting point of the inner thermoplastic resin layer, which corresponds to the sealant layer.
Examiner respectfully submits that Sasayama is cited to teach that it is necessary that the material used for the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) have a melting temperature higher than that of the inner thermoplastic resin layer (1) of the laminate so that the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) can remain intact during the melt-adhesion (Ln31-36/Col 9); and Examples of resins which can be used for the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) include a polyamide resin, …, polyphenylene sulfide, (Ln36-42/Col9). Sasayama teaches polyamide resin, …, polyphenylene sulfide for the outer electrically insulating material layer (Ln36-42/Col9) corresponding to the substrate layer; Sasayama also teaches polyester for the inner thermoplastic resin layer (1) (Ln45-51/Col8) encompassing PET as the inner layer. Since primary reference Kazuhiko alone or in view of Muggli has included using PET as the inner layer, the fact that Sasayama does not specifically teach the melting point of the sealant layer is irrelevant as long as a skilled artisan would have known to have a higher melting point of a substrate layer in comparison with that of a sealant layer taught by Sasayama. Thus, Applicant’s comment regarding Sasayama lacking the melting point of the inner layer is not found persuasive.
To summarize, the cited references combined would render claim 1 obvious. The argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, the previous 103 rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 10-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP 2016072212 A, see machine translation for citation), in view of Muggli (CA 2398151 A1), further in view of Sasayama (US 6461757 B1), with evidence from Table 1 (Table 11.6.2., Introduction to Plastic Engineering (2020 Edition) 2020 John Wiley & Sons), Table 2 (Table 2.3, Polymer Blends and Composites-Chemistry and Technology 2017 John Wiley & Sons), and Table 3 (Table 26.2, Properties of Polymers-Their Correlation with Chemical Structure; Their Numerical Estimation and Prediction from Additive Group Contributions (4th, Completely Revised Edition) 2009 Elsevier).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuhiko discloses a packaging material for a power storage device ([battery, [0013]), comprising: a laminate structure ([0013] and FIG. 1) comprising: a substrate layer ([0013]); a first adhesive layer (adhesive layer 2, [0013]); a metal foil layer (metal layer 3, [0013]); a second adhesive layer (coating layer 4, the metal layer 3 and the sealant layer 5 are firmly adhered to each other, [0041]); and an inner layer (sealant layer 5, ([0013]) in this order (FIG. 1).
Although Kazuhiko does not explicitly specify the inner layer consisting of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting temperature of 255 °C, Kazuhiko discloses polyethylene terephthalate among other choices as examples of polyester resin ([0063]), and polyester resin is among a finite list of examples of the resin that forms the sealant layer 5 ([0058]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyethylene terephthalate from the finite list of choices for the inner layer, as taught by Kazuhiko, and thus arrive at the claimed “an inner layer consisting of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting temperature of 255 °C” with a reasonable expectation of success because the melting point of crystallized PET (polyethylene terephthalate) is typically around 255-260 °C, as further evidenced by Table 2 showing polyethylene terephthalate has a melting point of 255°C.
Alternatively, while Kazuhiko does not explicitly specify the inner layer consisting of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting temperature of 255 °C, Kazuhiko discloses the desire to construct a thinner and lighter ([0002]) laminate packaging product to have high sealing properties that can prevent batteries from being unsealed even when exposed to high temperatures ([0005]); and examples of the resin that forms the sealant layer 5 include a polyester-based resin (polyester resins [0058]), and examples of polyester resin include polyethylene terephthalate among other choices ([0063]).
Muggli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the major drawback with the conventional art is that the tab area is extremely difficult to seal tightly which results in the life and performance of the battery being compromised (2nd Para/P7). Muggli further teaches the inner polymeric sealant layer 111 of FIG. 10 is polyethylene terephthalate or polyamide (claim 10 and Last Para/P35) and the hot melt polymer tab seal areas are much better than the conventional tab seal areas (2nd Para/P36).
A skilled artisan would have found it further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyethylene terephthalate for the inner layer in order to obtain a much better tab seal as taught by Muggli, and thus arrive at the claimed “an inner layer consisting of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting temperature of 255 °C” with a reasonable expectation of success, because the melting point of crystallized PET (polyethylene terephthalate) is typically around 255-260 °C, as further evidenced by Table 2 showing polyethylene terephthalate has a melting point of 255°C.
Kazuhiko further discloses materials for forming the substrate layer 1 include, for example, polyamide, among other choices ([0014]), which renders obvious the substrate layer consists of polyamide. While Kazuhiko further discloses specific examples of polyamide includes nylon 46 among other choices ([0016]), Kazuhiko does not explicitly disclose wherein a melting temperature of the substrate is from 290 to 350°C.
However, Table 1 shows Nylon 4,6 has a melting point of 295°C, which falls within the melting point range as claimed “wherein a melting temperature of the substrate is from 290 to 350°C”.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select nylon 46 from the finite list of choices of Kazuhiko and recognize the melting points of the polyamide substrate nylon 46 is 295°C which falls within the melting point range as claimed “wherein a melting temperature of the substrate is from 290 to 350°C”.
While modified Kazuhiko renders obvious polyethylene terephthalate could potentially be used for the inner layer, nylon 46 could potentially be used for the substrate layer as established above, and further discloses a method of preparing a packaging material for batteries that can effectively prevent unsealing of batteries even when the batteries are exposed to increased high temperatures ([0007]), Kazuhiko does not explicitly disclose the substrate layer alternatively consists of polyphenylene sulfide, nor the substrate layer has a melting peak temperature that is higher than the melting peak temperature of the inner layer.
Sasayama teaches similar desire to provide a lightweight and thin non-aqueous battery configuration (Ln33-36, Col. 4) and to prevent the occurrence of a short-circuiting during the melt-adhesion for sealing the casing in the production of the battery (Ln63-65, Col. 2); and thin laminates configuration of a sealable pouchy casing which includes a substrate layer (outer electrically insulating material layer), a middle metal foil layer and an inner layer (an inner thermoplastic resin layer) enveloping an electrochemical cell, and terminals for a non-aqueous battery (Ln11-19, Col. 1). (Examiner notes: “the outer electrically insulating material layer (3)” in Sasayama corresponds to “the substrate layer”; and “the inner thermoplastic resin layer (1)” in Sasayama corresponds to “the inner layer”, respectively, in the instant claim.)
Sasayama further teaches that it is necessary that the material used for the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) have a melting temperature higher than that of the inner thermoplastic resin layer (1) of the laminate so that the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) can remain intact during the melt-adhesion (Ln31-36/Col 9) which teaches the claimed “the substrate layer has a melting peak temperature that is higher than the melting peak temperature of the inner layer”.
Sasayama further teaches Examples of resins which can be used for the outer electrically insulating material layer (3) include a polyamide resin, …, polyphenylene sulfide, (Ln36-42/Col9), which renders obvious the substrate layer consists of polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide. Further, Table 3 shows polyphenylene sulfide has a melting temperature of 290°C, which falls on the lower end value of the melting temperature range for the substrate as claimed “wherein a melting temperature of the substrate is 290 to 350°C”.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been further obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to select either polyamide (such as nylon 46 from Kazuhiko’s finite list) or polyphenylene sulfide taught by Sasayama for the substrate layer, in combination with the PET inner layer of modified Kazuhiko, under routine optimization without undue experimentation such that, the substrate layer has a melting peak temperature that is higher than the melting peak temperature of the inner layer, as taught by Sasayama, in order to keep the substrate layer intact during heat-adhesion of the packaging materials and to prevent batteries from being unsealed even when exposed to high temperatures.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kazuhiko discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kazuhiko further discloses as the copolymer polyester having ethylene terephthalate as the main repeating unit, specifically, a copolymer polyester polymerized with ethylene isophthalate having ethylene terephthalate as the main repeating unit ([0063]) and polyalkylene ether glycol ([0016]), which reads on the claimed “the polyethylene terephthalate-based resin includes a structural unit derived from ethylene glycol, a structural unit derived from terephthalic acid, and an other structural unit, and a dihydric alcohol component from which the other structural unit is derived is at least one selected from a group consisting of neopentyl glycol, 1,4-butadiol, and diethylene glycol.”
Regarding claim 11, modified Kazuhiko discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kazuhiko discloses further, as the copolymer polyester having polyethylene terephthalate as the main repeating unit, specifically, a copolymer polyester polymerized with ethylene isophthalate having ethylene terephthalate as the main repeating unit (hereinafter referred to as polyethylene(terephthalate/isophthalate)) or polyethylene (terephthalate/adipate) ([0063]), which reads on the claimed limitation, “wherein the polyethylene terephthalate-based resin includes a structural unit derived from ethylene glycol, a structural unit derived from terephthalic acid, and an other structural unit, and an acid component from which the other structural unit is derived is at least one selected from a group consisting of isophthalic acid and adipic acid”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kazuhiko discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kazuhiko further discloses specific example of the resin component of the adhesive that can be used to form the adhesive layer 2 include polyurethane adhesive, epoxy resin, melamine resin, silicone-based resin, and the like ([0026]) and specifically, a two-component urethane adhesive (a polyol compound and an aromatic isocyanate compound was applied to one surface of the aluminum foil to form an adhesive layer 2on the metal layer 3 ([0087]), and coating layer 4 with curing agents which include polyfunctional isocyanate compounds, epoxy compounds ([0044]) which reads on the claimed “the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are composed of a cured product of a thermosetting adhesive.”
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Kazuhiko discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Kazuhiko discloses the battery package material of the present invention may be used for lithium-ion polymer batteries ([0085]) and the metal terminal connected to the positive electrode and the negative electrode protrude outward. The periphery of the battery element is coated so as to form a flange portion , and the sealant layers of the flange portion are heat sealed to each other to form a battery using a battery packing material provided ([0084]) which inherently reads on claim 13 “A power storage device comprising: a power storage device body; a current drawing terminal extending from the power storage device body; and the packaging material of claim 1 arranged to clamp the current drawing terminal and house the power storage device body.”; and claim 14 “The power storage device of claim 13, wherein the power storage device is an all- solid-state battery.”
Regarding claims 19-21, modified Kazuhiko discloses all of the claimed limitations as set forth above in the rejection to claim 1 .
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM ET.
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 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/16/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/18/2026