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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 1/8/26.
The applicant submits that the previous rejection is improper as Kuramoto does not teach every limitation, and Yamamoto teaches a filler composition which is materially different than a packing material. Then, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed the teachings of Yamamoto as analogous art.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. The applicant’s arguments directed at the deficiencies of Kuramoto individually are immaterial to the determination of obviousness based on the rejection relying on Kuramoto and Yamamoto.
Separately, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Kuramoto does not teach a first and second filler particle as Kuramoto teaches a mixture of filler particles (fine particle mixture)[0063] wherein the sizes of said filler particles are within the claimed range (fine particles diameter between 1 – 10 μm)[0030].
Regarding the sizes of said filler particles, Kuramoto was not relied upon to teach a large and small particle. The teachings of Yamamoto were included to indicate that in instances of a mixture of filler particles, such as in Kuramoto, it is known in the art to include variable particle sizes in the mixture wherein the content and shape of the filler impact the moldability, hardness, and thermal conductivity of the resulting packaging material [0066][0068][0069][0070].
Regarding the argument that Yamamoto would not be relevant to the problem of Kuramoto, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuramoto teaches a composition for a battery packaging material [0001][0015] and Yamamoto teaches a composition for a battery packaging material [0002][0066]. Then, it is clear that Yamamoto is both from the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem face by the inventor (ie. materials for packaging batteries).
Then, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: a portion of claim 17 is not included in the claim set filed 01/08/26, but is instead filed as a part of the remarks filed 01/08/26. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 – 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramoto, US20140087241A1 and Yamamoto, US20100310911A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kuramoto teaches a power storage device packaging material, comprising:
a substrate protective layer (matte coating layer (6)), a substrate layer (2), an adhesive layer (11), a metal foil layer (4), and a sealant layer (3)[fig. 1][0054] in this order from an outer surface side, wherein
the substrate protective layer (matte layer) is made of a curable resin (resin)[0021] that is cured containing a plurality of types of particles having different average particle sizes (fine particles comprising a mixture of inorganic and/or organic particles)[0022][0063][example 9],
the curable resin contains a polyol component as a base resin and a polyisocyanate component as a hardener (matte coating contains resin and isocyanate curing agent)[0062], and
the average particle size of the filler is 10 μm or more or 1 μm or more (fine particles diameter between 1 – 10 μm: because the range overlaps both claimed large and small filler it reads on both)[0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
an amount of the filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 3 mass % or more or 5 mass % or more (fine particles included in the matte layer composition between 0.1 – 60 wt%)[0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
wherein each of the large filler and the small filler is selected from the group consisting of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles, and acrylic particles, (fine particles types)[0063]
Kuramoto does not teach when, of the plurality of types of particles, particles having a large average particle size are referred to as a large filler and particles having a small average particle size are referred to as a small filler, an amount of the large filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 3 mass % or more, and an amount of the small filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 5 mass % or more
Yamamoto teaches a power storage device packaging material (outer packaging material)[0002] wherein the substrate protective layer (outermost layer of laminate packaging material)[0090] wherein the substrate protective layer comprises a curable resin and an isocyanate hardener [0037] mixed with a filler [0012][0067] wherein the content and shape of the filler impact the moldability, hardness, and thermal conductivity of the resulting packaging material [0066][0068][0069][0070]. Further, Yamamoto teaches that the filler can be a mixture of different particles, and the shapes and content of the particles within the mixture are changed depending on the intended usage and materials [0070]. Therefore, Yamamoto teaches that the content (mass %) and shape (size) of the filler particles are result effective variables. Then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed ranges of particle sizes and mass percentages for the large and small filler as a matter of routine optimization of the moldability and thermal conductivity of the packaging material.
Regarding claim 2, combined Kuramoto teaches the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Yamamoto teaches wherein the average particle size of the large filler is 30 μm or less, and the average particle size of the small filler is 5 μm or less (filler particle size between 0.5 – 40 μm)[0069], and the amount of the large filler is 25 mass % or less (3 – 60% filler)[0068]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Yamamoto teaches herein at least part of the polyisocyanate component is composed of an alicyclic polyisocyanate [0055].
Regarding claim 4, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Yamamoto teaches wherein at least part of the polyisocyanate component is composed of an aliphatic polyisocyanate or an aromatic polyisocyanate [0055], and
the amount of the large filler is 25 mass % or less, and a total amount of the large filler and the small filler is 50 mass % or less (3 – 60% filler)[0068]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 5, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein the large filler contains particles of an organic material (organic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 7, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein the large filler comprises silica particles, alumina particles, and calcium carbonate particles (inorganic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 8, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Yamamoto teaches wherein the adhesive layer contains a color pigment (additives including pigments)[0064].
Regarding claim 10, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein the large filler is selected from the group consisting of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles (inorganic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 11, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein each of the large filler and the small filler is selected from the group consisting of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles, (inorganic fine particleswherein particles may be mixed)[0063].
Regarding claim 13, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein the large filler consists of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles (inorganic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 14, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein each of the large filler and the small filler consists of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles (inorganic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 16, combined Kuramoto the power storage device packaging material of claim 1.
Further, Kuramoto teaches wherein each of the large filler and the small filler is selected from the group consisting of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles (inorganic fine particles)[0063].
Regarding claim 17, Kuramoto teaches a power storage device packaging material, comprising:
a substrate protective layer (matte coating layer (6)), a substrate layer (2), an adhesive layer (11), a metal foil layer (4), and a sealant layer (3)[fig. 1][0054] in this order from an outer surface side, wherein
the substrate protective layer (matte layer) is made of a curable resin (resin)[0021] that is cured containing a plurality of types of particles having different average particle sizes (fine particles comprising a mixture of inorganic and/or organic particles)[0022][0063][example 9],
the curable resin contains a polyol component as a base resin and a polyisocyanate component as a hardener (matte coating contains resin and isocyanate curing agent)[0062], and
the average particle size of the filler is 10 μm – 30 μm (fine particles diameter between 1 – 10 μm: because the range overlaps both claimed large and small filler it reads on both)[0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
an amount of the filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 3 mass % or more or 5 mass % or more (fine particles included in the matte layer composition between 0.1 – 60 wt%)[0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05].
wherein each of the large filler and the small filler is selected from the group consisting of silica particles, alumina particles, calcium carbonate particles, and acrylic particles, (fine particles types)[0063]
Kuramoto does not teach when, of the plurality of types of particles, particles having a large average particle size are referred to as a large filler and particles having a small average particle size are referred to as a small filler, an amount of the large filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 3 mass% - 25 mass%, and an amount of the small filler contained in the substrate protective layer is 5 mass % -
Yamamoto teaches a power storage device packaging material (outer packaging material)[0002] wherein the substrate protective layer (outermost layer of laminate packaging material)[0090] wherein the substrate protective layer comprises a curable resin and an isocyanate hardener [0037] mixed with a filler [0012][0067] wherein the content and shape of the filler impact the moldability, hardness, and thermal conductivity of the resulting packaging material [0066][0068][0069][0070]. Further, Yamamoto teaches that the filler can be a mixture of different particles, and the shapes and content of the particles within the mixture are changed depending on the intended usage and materials [0070]. Therefore, Yamamoto teaches that the content (mass %) and shape (size) of the filler particles are result effective variables. Then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed ranges of particle sizes and mass percentages for the large and small filler as a matter of routine optimization of the moldability and thermal conductivity of the packaging material.
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights