Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 July 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed differences in melting point between the layers improves the safety of the electrochemical cell, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant again argues the examples and ranges described by the prior do not teach or suggest the claimed ranges. However, the Examiner maintains that the prior art teaches a plethora of embodiments and Examples which render the claims obvious.
The rejection is now based specifically on the Examples seen in Table 1E - Example 11E includes a first layer with a melting point of 122°C and second through fourth sealing layers (i.e. the claimed second and third sealing layers which may be the same material) with a melting point of 160°C, a difference of 38°C (i.e. within claimed independent range) or Example 13E includes a first layer with a melting point of 113°C and second and third sealing layers with a melting point of 155 or 160°C, a difference of 42 or 47°C obviating the range in new claim 22. Examples cited in the rejection below were exemplary specifically noted as such also conformed to the dependent claims.
In regard to claims 21 and 23, Douke et al. prior art specifically describes electrodes (i.e., tabs) protruding from the battery cell within the packaging which are bonded to the sealing members at flanges (paragraph [0329] - see annotated figure below illustrating how the tab, sealing portion of housing 1 and sealing member are arranged in a manner which meets the claimed structure) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an electrode assembly is to be accommodated in the space enclosed by the film therefore the rejection is maintained as previously applied as the claimed structure fails to distinguish the claimed sealant layers from the various sealing layers in the battery cell packaging material of the prior art which is bonded to protruding electrode tabs.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-14, 16, 17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douke et al. (US Pub 2015/0372263 cited in IDS).
In regard to claims 1 and 13, Douke et al. teach an electronic device (paragraph [0002]) including an electrochemical device, comprising: an electrode assembly (paragraph [0329]); a housing comprising a main body (base material 1) portion for accommodating the electrode assembly and a sealing portion (adhesive 2 and metal layer 3 - see figures 1-10; including flange and main body where electrode is enclosed) connected to the main body portion;
a tab electrically connected to the electrode assembly and protruding from the sealing portion (metal terminal connected to electrodes protruding to the outside - paragraph [0329], see annotated figure below),
a sealing member (multilayer sealant layer 4, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d in combination with adhesive layer 5 or insulating layer 6), disposed between the tab and the sealing portion, to seal the tab with the housing; wherein at least a portion of the sealing member is disposed in the sealing portion, and the sealing member comprises a first sealing member and a second sealing member (two of these laminate films together make up the packaging, see figures 7-10, paragraph [0071]); and the tab is arranged between the first sealing member and the second sealing member,
PNG
media_image1.png
570
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first sealing member comprises a first sealing layer (such as on layer of sealant layers 4) and a second sealing layer (such as adhesive layer 5) disposed on the first sealing layer, and the first sealing layer is located between the tab and the second sealing layer (one of layers of sealant, adhesive and insulating layers, different embodiments discussed below),
the first sealing member further comprises a third sealing layer (second sealant layer 4b), and the third sealing layer is located between the tab and the first sealing layer and is adhered to the tab (see figure 2 annotated below), the second sealing layer is adhered to the sealing portion (figures – all layers of the prior art packaging material are adhered together),
a melting point of the first sealing layer (first sealant layer 4a -see paragraph [0236] – first sealant layer 4a in prior art is outermost and second sealant layer 4b is innermost layer of sealant) is lower than that of the second sealing layer (such as adhesive layer 5), and a difference in the melting point between the first sealing layer and the second sealing layer is 25-30° C (see Example 6 in Table 1, Adhesive layer 5 of mixed PP/PE with a Melting point Tm2 of 156°C and a Sealant layer 4 of PP/LLDPE with a Tm1 of 126°C, i.e. a difference in melting point of 30°C; Example 12 in Table 1, Example 12D in Table 1D – an adhesive layer 5 of acid modified PP with a Tm2 of 150°C, a first sealant layer 4a of PP with a Tm1 of 135°C and a second sealant layer 4b of PP with a Tm1 of 160°C which includes the three layer structure, i.e. a difference in melting point of 25°C relevant to dependent claims 5-12 below, annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to the amendment, as seen in Table 1E, Example 11E includes a first layer with a melting point of 122°C and second through fourth sealing layers (i.e. the claimed second and third sealing layers which may be the same material) with a melting point of 160°C, a difference of 38°C (i.e. within claimed independent range) or Example 13E includes a first layer with a melting point of 113°C and second and third sealing layers with a melting point of 155 or 160°C, a difference of 42 or 47°C obviating the range in new claim 22.
The specific examples above fall within or are close enough to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art to have the same properties, alternatively the prior art discloses general ranges for the polymer melting temperatures of the adhesive 5, insulating 6 and sealant layers 4a-c (such as a Tm of 110-160°C for the various layers in combination - paragraphs [0104-0308]) any many other examples which overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). This obviousness of ranges rationale applies all of the dependent claim ranges of Tm and thickness below.
In regard to claims 2, 14 and 22, the first sealing layer may have a melting point of 120° C (see Examples such as first sealant layer in Examples 16 with a Tm of 120° C), and the second sealing layer (adhesive layer 5) has a melting point of 150° C to 160° C (Examples 6, 7, 12 and 13). See also general ranges disclosed by the prior art noted above. Therefore, differences in melting points such as 40°C are embraced by the prior art.
In regard to claims 4 and 16, the first sealing layer 4 has a thickness of 30 μm to 60 μm (paragraph [0158]) and the second sealing layer 5 has a thickness of greater than 0.1 μm along the thickness direction of the electrochemical device (paragraph [0308]) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 5 and 17, the Examiner notes that the limitation “when a temperature of the electrochemical device is greater than a preset value, the adhesive force between the first sealing layer and the third sealing layer is less than that between the second sealing layer and the sealing portion” relates to a function of the apparatus (MPEP 2114) which the structure of the prior art is reasonably expected to be capable of performing as the structure of the prior art is indistinguishable from the claimed structure.
In regard to claims 7 and 19, the third sealing layer (second sealant layer 4b in prior art) has a melting point of 150° C. to 160° C (such as 160° C in Example 12, more Examples and general disclosure of prior art applied as noted above).
In regard to claims 8 and 20, a difference in the melting point between the second sealing layer (adhesive layer 5) and the third sealing layer (second sealant layer 4b) is 10° C in Example 12.
In regard to claims 9 and 10, wherein “when the electrochemical device has a temperature of greater than 110° C. and less than or equal to 140° C., an adhesive force between the first sealing, layer and the tab or between the third sealing layer and the first sealing layer decreases by 1 N/6 mm to 2 N/6 mm” or “when the electrochemical device has a temperature of greater than 110° C. and less than or equal to 120° C., an adhesive force between the first sealing, layer and the tab or between the third sealing layer and the first sealing layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.7 N/mm” relates to a function of the apparatus (MPEP 2114) which the structure of the prior art is reasonably expected to be capable of performing as the structure of the prior art is indistinguishable from the claimed structure. In any event, the prior art teaches the desirability to optimize the adhesive strength of the layers at different temperatures (paragraphs [0322-0327]) in a manner which obviates the claimed properties as the desirability to optimize the claimed properties is taught by prior art (MPEP 2144.05 Part II).
In regard to claims 11, the first sealing layer 4a has a thickness of 10 μm to 80 μm (paragraph [0158]) and the second sealing layer 5 has a thickness of greater than 0.1 μm along the thickness direction of the electrochemical device (paragraph [0308]) and the third sealing layer (second sealant layer 4b) has a thickness of 30 μm to 60 μm along the thickness direction of the electrochemical device (paragraph [0158]) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 12, all materials of the first sealing layer, the second sealing layer and the third sealing layer are at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene and polyurethane (see paragraphs [0093-0107], Examples in Tables).
In regard to claims 21 and 23, the main body portion encloses a space with an opening for accommodating the electrode assembly in the space and the sealing portion covers the opening of the main body portion (where tab exits package), and the second sealing layer is adhered directly to the sealing portion (see annotated figure 5 of the prior art above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 2015/0147629 (newly cited) teach layered sealant layers for battery packaging materials relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723