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
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument that Takada does not teach an adhesion enhancing agent layer, this argument is moot, as the rejection does not rely solely on Takada to address this feature of the claims. This feature is rejected by Takada in view of He, as presented in the rejection below.
The applicant asserts that in regards to the limitation of claim 1, the tensile elastic modulus relationship is not taught by Takada such that elastic modulus A after heating is smaller than tensile modulus B before heating. The applicant further asserts that where the previous office action states that this limitation is inherent to Takada, there is no basis that the inherent characteristics would flow from the teachings of the prior art.
Specifically, the applicant asserts that their specification’s comparative examples 7 and 8 do not result in the claimed tensile elastic modulus A and B because they are formed by the t-die method, and that therefore these examples indicate what would necessarily flow from the teachings of Takada.
This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as it is not clear why comparative examples 7-8 made by t-die method do not result in claimed tensile elastic modulus A and B while the examples showing inventive adhesive film, also made by the t-die method result in the claimed tensile elastic modulus A and B.
The specification’s paragraph 0108 discloses that all of the examples 1-3 and comparative examples 1-10 were produced via a T-die method (Paragraph 0108, “Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples1 to 10<Production of Adhesive Films for Metal Terminals> Polypropylene films (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PP layers") each having a melting point and a MFR as shown in Table 1 and having a thickness as shown in Table 2 were used as base materials. Maleic acid-modified polypropylenes (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PPa") each having a melting point and a melt mass-flow rate (MFR) as shown in Table 1 were extruded by a T-die extruder onto one surface of the base material to form first polyolefin layers (PPa layers) each having a thickness as shown in Table 2. Next, PPa was extruded by a T-die extruder onto the other surface of the base material to form second polyolefin layers (PPa layers) each having a thickness as shown in Table 2, to obtain adhesive films for metal terminals in which a PPa layer/a PP layer/a PPa layer were laminated in this order.”). Based on the specification and the applicant’s arguments, it is not apparent that comparative examples 7 and 8 demonstrate what would necessarily flow from the teachings of Takada.
In regards to the applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art modifying Takada would not arrive at the claimed relationship of tensile elastic modulus A and tensile elastic modulus B, the quotes the response of the office action “it is not asserted nor discussed by the previous office action of record that one would modify the structure of Takada.” This quotation is incomplete, where the full quote is “Here, it is not asserted nor discussed by the previous rejection of record that one would modify the structure of Takada to reach the result of the instant claim in regards to the tensile strength limitations of claim 1, but it is instead asserted that said structure is inherent to the composition of the example of Takada, based on the chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties of the adhesive film of Takada.”
As discussed in the applicant’s own specification, T-die extrusion and inflation based methods are equivalently effective in achieving the properties of the adhesive film (Paragraph 0031, “The tensile elastic modulus of the adhesive film 1 for metal terminals of the present disclosure can be adjusted by adjusting the laminated structure, the melting points, MFRs, thicknesses, and thickness ratio of the layers, as well as conditions in the production of the adhesive film 1 for metal terminals, such as a T-die and inflation”).
Further, in discussing the differences between the T-die method and the inflation method, Takada only discusses their differences within the context of uniformity of the extruded resin (Paragraph 0051, “As a manufacturing method of the sealant 24 , three layer inflation molding is desirable. As a general extrusion molding, a T-die method or an inflation method is provided. In the T-die method, resin having a small MFR has high difficulty of extrusion. Meanwhile, when the MFR is high, it is hard to maintain bubbles in the inflation method so that pinholes or a breakage may occur on the film. On the other hand, when extrusion is performed with a low MFR, the shape of the bubbles is stable so that the film having less non-uniformity can be formed. Accordingly, as performed in the present embodiment, the inflation method is the best when performing the extrusion of the film including low MFR resin. In a case where the skin layers 21 and 23 are the same type, extrusion molding having 2 types and 3 layers is used.”).
As discussed in the previous office action of record the invention of Takada comprises the same chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties as the invention of the instant application in regards to the tensile strength feature, the invention of Takada therefore inherently reads upon the limitations of Claim 1 which require structure wherein a tensile elastic modulus A after heating is smaller than a value of a tensile elastic modulus B before heating. The fact that different processes were used to reach this end state, which has a same chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties, is not indicative of differing properties, where the chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties of the adhesive film are identical.
Further, the applicant’s arguments in regards to that one of ordinary skill in the art must modify Takada to arrive at the newly recited adhesion enhancing agent layer, and by such a modification one of ordinary skill in the art would use the T-die method and not inherently achieve the claimed relationship of A and B, and that any assumption by the office that it would necessarily result in the claimed relationship is directly disputed by the evidence of the working examples, have been fully considered but have not been found to be persuasive. Takada discusses the inflation method as being superior, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the t-die method. However, this does not mean that they would not achieve the claimed relationship, based on the same chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties in their adhesive film. Further, the adhesion enhancing agent is not discussed as being present in the examples 1-3 of the instant specification, and is accordingly the examples do not comprise it are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The applicant further asserts that as one of ordinary skill in the art must modify Takada to arrive at the newly recited adhesion enhancing agent layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the T-die method and therefore not inherently achieve the claimed relationship of A and B, and that any assumption by the office that it would necessarily result in the claimed relationship is directly disputed by the evidence of working examples.
This argument has been fully considered but has not been found to be persuasive. As discussed above, it has not been established by the applicant that the “working examples” indicate that the structure of modified Takada would not inherently read upon the required relationship of A and B.
In regards to the applicant’s argument that the claimed adhesive film provides unexpected results over Takada, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the claimed range of thicknesses are not impermissibly larger than what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider, and that where examples of 1.1, 1.1, and 0.7 are used, the claimed range of 0.7 to 1.5 is “relatively similar to what is shown in the examples”. Here, the statement that the claimed ranges are not impermissibly larger is inconsistent with the requirements that the unexpected results be commensurate in scope as set forth in MPEP section 716.02(d), which requires that the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if it occurs over the entire claimed range (“Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C).”).
Here, where the applicant claims a range of 0.7 to 1.5, but only demonstrates examples in the range of 0.7, 1.1, and 1.1, there is nothing that suggests that the unexpected results occur within the range of greater than 1.1 to 1.5. Additionally, to demonstrate the criticality of a claimed range, the applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the range. (“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).”).
Additionally, it is not clear, based on the applicant’s claims and specification, what basis is used for determining the bounds of the claimed ranges, if an embodiment with a value of 1.1 is “relatively similar to what is shown in the examples”, compared with an example of 1.5.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that “the same applies to each other property which the office action asserts should be recited to be commensurate in scope”. This argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive, as it is a conclusion presented without providing any support or evidence to support said conclusion.
Additionally, the other features which are discussed as being not commensurate in scope are different from numerical ranges. It is not clear why one ordinarily skilled in the art would consider maleic acid modified polypropylenes the be relatively similar to the scope of any polyolefin, or why one ordinarily skilled in the art would consider a polypropylene film to be relatively similar to any base material.
Additionally, where the applicant asserts that comparative examples 2, 4, and 5, have ratios within the claimed range but present inferior results, this is explained by the failure of these examples to achieve the claimed relationship of elastic modulus A and B. This argument is fully considered, but is not persuasive, as it does not constitute a full argument of unexpected results, in view of the discussion of the requirement that the unexpected results are commensurate in scope with the claims, as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (US 20150311483 A1), further in view of He (US 20190198825 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takada is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing structure which comprises an adhesive film for metal terminals (Abstract, “A secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film”) which is to be interposed between a metal terminal electrically connected to an electrode of a power storage device element and a power storage device packaging material for sealing the power storage device element (Abstract, “The secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film (24) according to the present invention is laminated, coating metal terminal (26) connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”; Paragraph 0004, “The secondary battery laminate packing material (hereinafter referred to as packing material) 10 is a laminate body constituted of metal foil and resin. As shown in FIG. 1, the packing material 10 is constituted by, in order, generally, an inner layer, an inner resin layer 11, an inner adhesive layer 12, a corrosion prevention processed layer 13, a barrier layer 14, a corrosion prevention processed layer 13, an outer adhesive layer 15 and an outer layer 16.”).
Additionally, Takada inherently discloses structure wherein a value of a tensile elastic modulus A after heating is smaller than a value of a tensile elastic modulus B after heating, through disclosing the use of an identical structure for the adhesive film for metal terminals. Here, the instant specification’s adhesive film comprises a first polyolefin layer, a base material and a second polyolefin layer (Paragraph 0020, “and more preferably includes a structure in which at least the first polyolefin layer 12a, the base material 11, and a second polyolefin layer 12b are laminated in this order,”), where Takada discloses the same overall structure, comprising a pair of polyolefin layers which surround a base material layer (Paragraph 0037, “The sealant 24 is configured by, in order from a side furthest from the lead 27 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 21 , a sealant core layer (hereinafter also simply referred to core layer) 22 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 23 .”).
Additionally, in regards to the compositions of said layers, the instant specification discloses that the polyolefin layers are acid-modified polyolefins (Paragraph 0021, “In the adhesive film 1 for metal terminals of the present disclosure, it is preferred that at least one of the first polyolefin layer 12a and the second polyolefin layer 12b contain an acid-modified polyolefin, and it is more preferred that the first polyolefin layer 12a and the second polyolefin layer 12b contain an acid-modified polyolefin.”), specifically an acid-modified polypropylene for the first and second layers and polypropylene for the base material layer (Paragraph 0022, “Specific examples of preferred laminated structures of the adhesive film1 for metal terminals of the present disclosure include a two-layer structure of an acid- modified polypropylene layer/a polypropylene layer; a three-layer structure in which an acid-modified polypropylene layer/a polypropylene layer/an acid-modified polypropylene layer are laminated in this order;”) where Takada further discloses the same structure, making use of acid-modified polypropylene for the acid-modified polyolefin layers (Paragraph 0068, “Acid modified polypropylene (PPa) having the melting point 140 degrees C. and MFR 15 g/10 minutes is used for the skin layers A and B”), and polypropylene for the base material layer (Paragraph 0068, “and polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of 160 degrees C. and MFR 1.0 g/10 minutes is used.”).
Additionally, the instant specification indicates that the base material necessary to achieve the claimed structure has a melting point that falls within the range of 130 degrees C to 190 degrees C (Paragraph 0045, “From the viewpoint of achieving higher adhesion strength to the metal terminal even when the heating temperature during bonding of the adhesive film for metal terminals to the metal terminal is a low temperature of 140 to 180°C, for example, while satisfying the above-described tensile elastic modulus, the melting point of the base material 11 is preferably 130°C or more, and more preferably 150°C or more. From the viewpoint of imparting excellent flexibility to the adhesive film1 for metal terminals, the melting point of the base material11 is preferably 190°C or less…”), and Takada discloses that the melting point of their base material is 160 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0068, “and polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of 160 degrees C. and MFR 1.0 g/10 minutes is used.”). Here, the same comparison is also true for the melting points of the first and second polyolefin layers, where the instant specification indicates a preferred melting point of 120 to 160 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0064, “the melting point of the first and second polyolefin layers 12a and 12b is preferably about 120°C or more, and more preferably about 130°C or more, while it is preferably about 160°C or less, and more preferably about 150°C or less.”), and Takada discloses that their first and second polyolefin layers have a melting point of 140 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0068, “Acid modified polypropylene (PPa) having the melting point 140 degrees C. and MFR 15 g/10 minutes is used for the skin layers A and B”).
Here, where the invention of Takada comprises the same chemical composition, ordering, and physical properties as the invention of the instant application, the invention of Takada therefore inherently reads upon the limitations of Claim 1 which require structure wherein a tensile elastic modulus A after heating is smaller than a value of a tensile elastic modulus B before heating. Additionally, as Takada discloses a melting point of 140 degrees C, their invention further inherently comprises structure which would present the required tensile elastic modulus structure where modulus A after heating is measured in an environment at a temperature of 25 degrees C after the adhesive film is allowed to stand in a heating environment at a temperature of 140 C for 12 seconds and then in an environment at a temperature of 25 degrees C for 1 hour, and where tensile elastic modulus B before heating is a tensile elastic modulus measured in an environment at a temperature of 25 degrees C.
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the adhesive film for metal terminals is formed of a laminate comprising a first polyolefin layer, a base material, and a second polyolefin layer in this order (Paragraph 0037, “The sealant 24 is configured by, in order from a side furthest from the lead 27 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 21 , a sealant core layer (hereinafter also simply referred to core layer) 22 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 23 .”), where Takada’s sealant skin layers 21 and 23 are polyolefin layers (Paragraph 0039, “A resin having improved adhesive properties against the lead 27 and a polyolefin resin is required for the skin layers 21 and 23”) which surround a base material 22 (Paragraph 0037, “a sealant core layer (hereinafter also simply referred to core layer) 22”).
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the first polyolefin layer 21 and second polyolefin layer 23 have a thickness which ranges from 10 to 300 microns (Paragraph 0042, “The film thickness of the skin layers 21 and 23 may preferably be within a range from about 10 μm to 300 μm.”). Additionally, Takada discloses structure where the thickness of the core layer 22 ranges from 20 to 200 microns (Paragraph 0046, “The film thickness of the core layer 22 may preferably be within a range from about 20 μm to about 200 μm.”)
Here, Takada discloses that when the thickness of the first and second polyolefin layers is too high, thickness control is hard to achieve during extrusion, increasing manufacturing cost (Paragraph 0042, “Further, when the film thickness of the skin layers 21 and 23 exceeds about 300 μm, thickness control is hard to achieve during extrusion such as inflation molding and the amount of resin required is increased thereby causing an increase of manufacturing cost.”). Additionally, Takada discloses that when the thickness is less than 10 percent, the amount of resin that flows to so as to fill the lead end cannot be secured and causes insufficient filling. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a thickness as low as possible so minimize cost, while being large enough to have sufficient filling, thereby making obvious a thickness at the lowest end of Takada’s range, that being 10 microns.
Additionally, Takada discloses that when the thickness of the base material layer 22 is too high, thickness control is hard to achieve during extrusion, increasing manufacturing cost (Paragraph 0046, “When the film thickness of the core layer 22 exceeds about 200 μm, as similar to the skin layers 21 and 23 , thickness control is hard to achieve during extrusion such as an inflation molding and an amount of resin is increased thereby causing an increase of manufacturing cost.”), and that when the thickness of the base material layer 22 is too low, insulation properties are decreased (Paragraph 0046, “When the film thickness of the core layer 22 is less than about 20 μm, the total thickness of the lead shoulder 27 b is lowered so that the insulation properties are decreased.”). Accordingly, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a thickness that minimizes manufacturing cost, while achieving sufficient insulation properties, thereby making obvious a thickness at the lowest end of Takada’s range, that being 20 microns.
Accordingly, where the thickness of the first and second polyolefin layers are each 10 microns, and the thickness of the base material layer is 20 microns, this thereby represents structure where a ratio of the thickness of the base material to a total thickness of the first polyolefin layer and the second polyolefin layer is 1.0, which falls within the range of the claim, where the ratio must be 0.7 or more and 1.5 or less.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the adhesive film comprise an adhesion enhancing agent layer disposed between the first polyolefin layer and the base material layer and/or between the second polyolefin layer and the base material Takada fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to He, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards adhesive film art, being directed towards an adhesive film disposed between a metal terminal and a packaging material layer (Abstract, “A packaging material for a power storage device includes a base material layer as an outer layer, a heat fusible resin layer as an inner layer, and a metal foil layer arranged between both the layers. The base material layer and the metal foil layer are adhered via an outer adhesive layer. Here, He discloses outer adhesive layers 5 and inner adhesive layer 6 which are located between a base material layer 4 and first and second layers 2 and 3, shown in their figure 1. Here, He discloses the use of an outer adhesive layer 5 (Paragraph 0044, “The outer adhesive layer 5 is formed by a cured coating of a two-part curing type urethane adhesive agent in which a main agent containing a polyol and a multifunctional isocyanate mixture are contained and the polyol content rate is 50 mass % to 95 mass %. The multifunctional isocyanate mixture is composed of a mixture containing an aromatic multifunctional isocyanate and an aliphatic multifunctional isocyanate having an aromatic ring. Therefore, the outer adhesive layer is less likely to yellow, so that the packaging material is excellent in yellowing resistance, and the sufficient adhesive strength of the outer adhesive agent can be obtained, so that the formability is also good.”) which reduces yellowing and has sufficient adhesive strength and good formability. Further, He teaches that the use of the adhesive layer prevents delamination of the components of the adhesive film. Where delamination avoidance represents improved lifespan and durability, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of an adhesive agent layer disposed between the first polyolefin layer and the base material layer and between the second polyolefin layer and the base material, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the tensile elastic modulus B before heating is 580 MPa or more, Takada does not explicitly disclose said structure. However, Takada does disclose the use of a layered structure comprising an acid-modified polyolefin (Paragraph 0020, “Further, in the above-described secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film, at least one layer of the skin layers may be an acid modified polyolefin resin.”), covering a layer of polyolefin resin (Paragraph 0037, “The sealant 24 is configured by, in order from a side furthest from the lead 27 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 21 , a sealant core layer (hereinafter also simply referred to core layer) 22 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 23 .”; Paragraph 0068, “The sealant is produced by inflation extrusion of two types and three layers (hereinafter also referred to as inflation method) using the skin layer A and the skin layer B which are identical. Here, the skin layers A and B correspond to the above-described skin layers 21 and 23 . Acid modified polypropylene (PPa) having the melting point 140 degrees C. and MFR 15 g/10 minutes is used for the skin layers A and B and polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of 160 degrees C. and MFR 1.0 g/10 minutes is used.”).
Here, where Takada discloses the same composition, ordering, and physical properties in their adhesive film as the invention of the instant application, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, the invention of Takada would therefore inherently comprise structure in which the tensile elastic modulus B before heating is 580 MPa or more, thereby reading upon the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein difference in tensile elastic modulus calculated by subtracting the value of the tensile elastic modulus B before heating from the value of the tensile elastic modulus A after heating is -20 MPa or less, Takada does not explicitly disclose said structure. However, Takada does disclose the use of a layered structure comprising an acid-modified polyolefin (Paragraph 0020, “Further, in the above-described secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film, at least one layer of the skin layers may be an acid modified polyolefin resin.”), covering a layer of polyolefin resin (Paragraph 0037, “The sealant 24 is configured by, in order from a side furthest from the lead 27 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 21 , a sealant core layer (hereinafter also simply referred to core layer) 22 , a sealant skin layer (hereinafter also simply referred to skin layer) 23 .”; Paragraph 0068, “The sealant is produced by inflation extrusion of two types and three layers (hereinafter also referred to as inflation method) using the skin layer A and the skin layer B which are identical. Here, the skin layers A and B correspond to the above-described skin layers 21 and 23 . Acid modified polypropylene (PPa) having the melting point 140 degrees C. and MFR 15 g/10 minutes is used for the skin layers A and B and polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of 160 degrees C. and MFR 1.0 g/10 minutes is used.”).
Here, where Takada discloses the same composition, ordering, and physical properties in their adhesive film as the invention of the instant application, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, the invention of Takada would therefore inherently comprise structure in which a difference in tensile elastic modulus calculated by subtracting the value of the tensile elastic modulus B before heating from the value of the tensile elastic modulus A after heating is -20 MPa or less, thereby inherently reading upon and anticipating the structure of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the tensile elastic modulus A after heating is 580 MPa or more and 700 MPa or less, Takada does not explicitly disclose said structure. However, Takada does disclose the use of a layered structure comprising an acid-modified polyolefin (Paragraph 0020, “Further, in the above-described secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film, at least one layer of the skin layers may be an acid modified polyolefin resin.”), covering a layer of polyolefin resin (Paragraph 0045, “Considering adhesive properties with the skin layers 21 and 23 , the core layer 22 may preferably be made from polyolefin resin.”), further having a thickness of 140 microns (Paragraph 0067, “As a packaging material 10 , from the outer side, nylon (thickness 25 μm), polyester polyol system adhesive (thickness 5 μm), aluminum foil (thickness 40 μm, A8079-annealed aluminum material), acid modified polypropylene (hereinafter also referred to as PPa, thickness 30 μm), and polypropylene (hereinafter also referred to as PP, thickness 40 um) are employed.”; Paragraph 0068, “The sealant is produced by inflation extrusion of two types and three layers (hereinafter also referred to as inflation method) using the skin layer A and the skin layer B which are identical. Here, the skin layers A and B correspond to the above-described skin layers 21 and 23 . Acid modified polypropylene (PPa) having the melting point 140 degrees C. and MFR 15 g/10 minutes is used for the skin layers A and B and polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of 160 degrees C. and MFR 1.0 g/10 minutes is used.”).
Here, where Takada discloses the same composition, ordering, and physical properties in their adhesive film as the invention of the instant application, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, the invention of Takada would therefore inherently comprise structure in which the tensile elastic modulus A after heating is 580 MPa or more and 700 MPa or less, thereby inherently reading upon and anticipating the structure of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the adhesive film for metal terminals has a total thickness of 150 microns (Paragraph 0068, “so as to produce the total thickness 150 μm having film thicknesses 45/60/45 μm (skin layer A/core layer/skin layer B).”; Paragraph 0068, “Here, the skin layers A and B correspond to the above-described skin layers 21 and 23”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein a resin contained in the base material contains a polyolefin backbone (Paragraph 0045, “Considering adhesive properties with the skin layers 21 and 23 , the core layer 22 may preferably be made from polyolefin resin.”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the first polyolefin layer and the second polyolefin layer contain an acid-modified polyolefin (Paragraph 0020, “Further, in the above-described secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film, at least one layer of the skin layers may be an acid modified polyolefin resin.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the power storage packaging material is formed of a second laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a second barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order (Paragraph 0004, “As shown in FIG. 1, the packing material 10 is constituted by, in order, generally, an inner layer, an inner resin layer 11 , an inner adhesive layer 12 , a corrosion prevention processed layer 13 , a barrier layer 14 , a corrosion prevention processed layer 13 , an outer adhesive layer 15 and an outer layer 16”), where Takada’s barrier layer 14 is a base material layer, their corrosion prevention processed layer is a barrier layer, and their inner adhesive layer 12 is a heat sealable resin layer (Paragraph 0058, “As for the inner adhesive layer 12 , publicly known materials such as adhesive for dry laminates or acid-modified heat sealed resins can be used.”).
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the adhesive film for metal terminals is interposed between the heat-sealable resin layer and the metal terminal, where the adhesive film 24 is attached to the metal terminal 27, as depicted in Takada’s figure 3B (Paragraph 0004, “The tab 20 is constituted by a metal terminal (hereinafter also referred to as a lead) 27 and a metal terminal coating resin film (hereinafter also referred to as a sealant) 24 .”), where the packaging material 10 which includes the heat-sealable resin layer surrounds the adhesive film 24 (Paragraph 0005, “the sealant 24 is a member disposed between the lead 27 and the packing material 10”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the adhesive film for metal terminals is attached to a metal terminal (Paragraph 0004, “The tab 20 is constituted by a metal terminal (hereinafter also referred to as a lead) 27 and a metal terminal coating resin film (hereinafter also referred to as a sealant) 24.”), as depicted in Takada’s figure 3B where the adhesive film 24 is attached to the metal terminal 27.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Takada is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a power storage device element (Abstract, “A secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film having improved overall performance and capable of securing filling ability, adhesive properties, insulating properties of a lead end portion and shape retention properties of a sealant, a manufacturing method for the same and a battery pack using the secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film in provided in the lead end portion of a tab used for a laminate-type packaging material for a secondary battery.”) comprising at least a positive electrode (Paragraph 0005, “Aluminum is used for the lead 27 of the positive electrode”), a negative electrode (Paragraph 0005, “Meanwhile, nickel or copper is used for the negative electrode of the lead 27”), and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0049, “In secondary batteries such as a lithium ion battery, the electrolyte solution contains a corrosive component such as LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate). Hence, a corrosion prevention processing is necessary for the lead 27.”), as Takada discloses the use of a corrosive prevention component to mitigate electrolyte-caused corrosion (Paragraph 0049, “Moreover, it is effective that a corrosion prevention processing is performed to the lead 27.”) an electrolyte is therefore present.
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the power storage device element comprises a power storage device packaging material for sealing the power storage device element (Abstract, “The secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film (24) according to the present invention is laminated, coating metal terminal (26) connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”; Paragraph 0004, “The secondary battery laminate packing material (hereinafter referred to as packing material), and the metal terminal connected to each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode”), and where the metal terminal is electrically connected to each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph 0017, “Another aspect of the present invention is a secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film being laminated, coating a metal terminal connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”), protruding outside the power storage device packaging material (Paragraph 0004, “An electrode terminal which is called tab is required in order to supply power from the lithium ion battery constituted by the packing material 10 .”), where the supplying to the lithium battery requires structure where a portion of the metal terminals is exposed to the outside of the packaging material, thereby constituting a protruding segment.
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the adhesive film for metal terminals according to Claim 1 is interposed between the metal terminal and the power storage device packaging material (Abstract, “The secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film (24) according to the present invention is laminated, coating metal terminal (26) connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”; Paragraph 0004, “The secondary battery laminate packing material (hereinafter referred to as packing material).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Takada is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing structure which comprises a method for producing a power storage device comprising the power storage device element (Abstract, “A secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film having improved overall performance and capable of securing filling ability, adhesive properties, insulating properties of a lead end portion and shape retention properties of a sealant, a manufacturing method for the same and a battery pack using the secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film in provided in the lead end portion of a tab used for a laminate-type packaging material for a secondary battery.”) comprising at least a positive electrode (Paragraph 0005, “Aluminum is used for the lead 27 of the positive electrode”), a negative electrode (Paragraph 0005, “Meanwhile, nickel or copper is used for the negative electrode of the lead 27”), and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0049, “In secondary batteries such as a lithium ion battery, the electrolyte solution contains a corrosive component such as LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate). Hence, a corrosion prevention processing is necessary for the lead 27 .”), as Takada discloses the use of a corrosive prevention component to mitigate electrolyte-caused corrosion (Paragraph 0049, “Moreover, it is effective that a corrosion prevention processing is performed to the lead 27 .”) an electrolyte is present.
Additionally, Takada discloses structure where their method comprises the power storage device comprising the power storage device comprising the power storage device packaging material
for sealing the power storage device element (Abstract, “The secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film (24) according to the present invention is laminated, coating metal terminal (26) connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”; Paragraph 0004, “The secondary battery laminate packing material (hereinafter referred to as packing material), and the metal terminal connected to each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode”), and where the metal terminal is electrically connected to each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph 0017, “Another aspect of the present invention is a secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film being laminated, coating a metal terminal connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”), protruding outside the power storage device packaging material (Paragraph 0004, “An electrode terminal which is called tab is required in order to supply power from the lithium ion battery constituted by the packing material 10 .”), where the supplying to the lithium battery requires structure where a portion of the metal terminals is exposed to the outside of the packaging material, thereby constituting a protruding segment.
Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein their method comprises a step including interposing the adhesive film for metal terminals according to Claim 1 between the metal terminal and the power storage device packaging material (Abstract, “The secondary battery metal terminal coating resin film (24) according to the present invention is laminated, coating metal terminal (26) connected to a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery.”; Paragraph 0004, “The secondary battery laminate packing material (hereinafter referred to as packing material), and sealing the power storage device element with the power storage device packaging material (Paragraph 0060, “When the battery pack is produced, the packaging material 10 and the tab (tab lead 27 and tab sealant 24 are adjoined by welding) 20 are heat-sealed.”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Takada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Takada discloses structure wherein the melt mass-flow rate (MFR) of the base material layer 22 in their comparative example is 1.0 shown in their table 1, when melted at a temperature of 230 degrees Celsius, where the chemical composition of the material used in the comparative example 1 is the same as the example 1 (Paragraph 0078, “The sealant was produced with the same condition as the Example 1 except that a film-forming method of the sealant is changed to a T-die method with a melting temperature at 230 degrees C.”). Accordingly, where the instant claim requires a specific property of the component, Takada indicates that the base material has said required MFR at 230 degrees Celsius, even though Takada does not disclose the melting of the base material at 230 degrees in regards to their example 1.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights