DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 01/02/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 8 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 recite the limitation “non-stretched “, however, the specification states that the final structure of the battery packaging material is stretched when molded to form a recess (see [3] and [56] of instant application). Accordingly, the battery packaging material of claim 1 is interpreted to be within the state of manufacture consistent with Fig. 1 of the instant application (before stretching to form the recess seen in Fig. 2).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein in the second surface” should state “wherein the second surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the another non-stretched film layer” which has not been introduced. However, it is clear from previous versions of claim 1 that “the another non-stretched film layer” should state “the second non-stretched film layer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “on a surface”, however both surfaces of the first non-stretched film layer have already been introduced. However, it is clear from the specification and Fig. 1 that this should state “the first surface” consistent with claim 1 and the functional considerations regarding lubricant in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is 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.
Claims 5 recites “the non-stretched film layer” however, it is unclear whether this is the second or third non-stretched film layer, or if this is directed to the sealant film, as all are described in the specification and claims to be bonded to the metal foil. Claim 5 is interpreted as “the third non-stretched film layer” as this is the layer most immediately adjacent to the metal foil seen in Fig. 1 of the instant application.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino (US-20180123093-A1) in view of Kaori (JP-2016190646-A) (see enclosed translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Yoshino teaches a battery packaging material (Fig. 2, 1; [0064]), comprising:
a heat resistant [0064] resin layer (Fig. 2, 2; [0064]);
a sealant film (Fig. 2, 3; [0064]) for a battery packaging material 1;
and a metal foil layer (Fig. 2, 4; [0064]) disposed between the heat resistant resin layer 2 and the sealant film 3,
wherein the battery packaging material 1 comprises an inner surface (Fig. 2, 7a) and an outer surface (Fig. 2, upper surface of 2), the inner surface 7a of the battery packaging material consists of the sealant film 3,
and the outer surface (Fig. 2, upper surface of 2) of the battery packaging material 1 consists of the heat resistant resin layer 2,
wherein the sealant film 3 comprises: a multi-layer material (Fig. 2, 3 comprises 7, 8, and 9) comprising:
a first non-stretched (see [0122], “planar packaging material 1 not subjected to shaping” and [0007] wherein drawing, aka stretching, only occurs when the battery packaging material is formed to have a recess for accommodating a battery; hereinafter every recitation of the term “non-stretched” is mapped in accordance with the state of the battery packaging material 1, which is before any downstream processing for accommodating a battery has occurred; see claim interpretation section above) film layer (Fig. 2, 7; [0068]) wherein a first surface of said first non- stretched film layer (Fig. 2, bottom surface of 7) is the inner surface of the battery packaging material 7a,
and a second non-stretched film layer (Fig. 2, 8; [0068]) composed of one or more layers 8,
wherein a first surface (Fig. 2, bottom surface of 8) of the second non-stretched film layer 8 is laminated [0068] on a second surface (Fig. 2, upper surface of 7) of the first non-stretched film layer 7,
wherein the second surface of the first non-stretched film layer (Fig. 2, top surface of 7) is positioned opposite to the first surface of the first non-stretched film layer 7a (see Fig. 2)
and wherein a second surface (Fig. 2, top surface of 8) of the second non- stretched film layer 8 is affixed to the metal foil layer 4 through a third non-stretched film (Fig. 2, 9; [0068]);
wherein the first non-stretched film layer 7 comprises:
a random copolymer [0071] containing a monomer other than propylene [0071] and propylene [0071] as a copolymerization component [0071];
and a lubricant [0071],
wherein the multi-layer material 3 is a three-layer structure (7/8/9) in which the third non- stretched film 9 is laminated on the second surface (Fig. 2, top surface of 7) of the first non-stretched film layer 7 via the second non-stretched film layer 8 as an intermediate layer (see Fig. 2, 7/8/9),
and wherein the third non-stretched film 9 is bonded to the metal foil layer [0068] via an adhesive layer (Fig. 2, 6; [0068]),
wherein the second non-stretched film layer 8 is a layer comprising a block copolymer [0102] containing a monomer other than propylene [0102-0103] and propylene as a copolymerization component [0102-0103],
and wherein the third non-stretched film layer 9 is a layer comprising a random copolymer [0107] containing a monomer other than propylene [0107] and propylene [0107] as copolymerization component [0107].
Yoshino fails to teach the first non-stretched film layer comprises a homopolymer of propylene; wherein a content rate of the homopolymer to a total amount of the random copolymer and the homopolymer is 5 wt% to 30 wt%. Kaori teaches an first non-stretched film layer (Fig. 3, inner surface layer 13; [0013], [0064]) wherein a content rate of the homopolymer ([0064], “homo polypropylene”) to a total amount of the random copolymer ([0064], “ethylene random block copolymer (A) with 40~60wt%”) and the homopolymer (see [0064]) 8.3% to 46.7% (derived from [0064], which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 5 wt% to 30 wt%). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the content rate of homopolymer of the innermost layer of the packaging material of Kaori in the innermost layer 7 of the packaging material of Yoshino as Kaori teaches that the composition contributes to high thermal stability, flexibility, and drop resistance without any deformation seen from high temperatures (see [0018]), which are common in batteries such as in instances of thermal runaway. The selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 2,
Yoshino in view of Kaori teaches the battery packaging material, as claimed in claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein a lubricant concentration [0131] in the first non-stretched film layer 7 is 500 ppm ([0131], wherein erucic acid amide is a lubricant as described in [0135]).
Regarding claim 4,
Yoshino in view of Kaori teaches the battery packaging material, as claimed in claim 3 (see elements of claim 3 above), wherein a lubricant concentration in the another non-stretched film layer (8, see claim objection above) is 500 ppm [0131], which is within the claimed range of 500-5,000 ppm.
Regarding claim 5,
Yoshino in view of Kaori teaches the battery packaging material, as recited in claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the non-stretched film layer (9, see 112(b) rejection above) of the battery packaging material bonded to the metal foil layer is a layer comprising a random copolymer containing a monomer other than propylene and propylene as a copolymerization component (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8,
Yoshino in view of Kaori teaches the battery packaging material as recited in claim 7 (see elements of claim 7 above), wherein, after aging ([0131], “aging”; see [0166] for measurement occurring after manufacturing the pouch, and thus after aging), an oozed ([0047], “bleed out amount”) amount of a lubricant [0118] present on a surface 7a of the first non-stretched film layer 7 of the sealant film 3 for a battery packaging material 1 is 0.1 µg/cm2 to 0.6 µg/cm2 , which overlaps, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 0.2 µg/cm2 to 1.0 µg/cm2. The selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 9,
Yoshino in view of Kaori teaches the battery packaging material as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the content rate of the homopolymer to a total amount of the random copolymer and the homopolymer is 5 wt% to 15 wt% (see rejection of claim 1 above, 8.3% to 46.7%, which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of 5 wt% to 15 wt%). The selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection on claim 1 has been sustained.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights