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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 17/774,004 and is in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed 01/05/2026.
Claims 1-15 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 11 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter, claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended, and claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HIRAKI (WO 2018/110702 A1) in view of MUROI (US 2017/0005302 A1) and OYAMA (WO 2019/078155 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 10. HIRAKI teaches an adhesive film for metal terminals, the metal terminals are electrically connected to an electrode in a battery element (abstract). The adhesive film comprises a laminate comprising at least one polypropylene layer, and at least one acid-modified propylene layer (abstract). As seen in Figure 5 the metal terminal adhesive film 1 is composed of a laminate including at least one polypropylene layer 11 and at least one acid-modified polypropylene layer 12 (page 3 lines 40-41 and page 4 lines 1-2). The acid-modified polypropylene layer 12 constitutes a surface layer on at least one side of the metal terminal adhesive film 1 (page 4 lines 1-2). As seen in Figure 5 then the layer 11 is the base, and the layers 12 are the claimed first and second polyolefin layer. The acid modified polypropylene layer 12 also preferably has a sea-island structure when a cross section is observed with an electron micrograph (page 10 lines 1-2). In the sea-island structure of the acid modified polypropylene layer 12, the ratio of the area of the island portion is not particularly limited, and may be from 10-50%, more preferably 20-40% (page 10 lines 5-8). This is taken to be an overlapping range with a ratio of the total area of island portions being 25-35%. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
HIRAKI does not explicitly teach the cross-section image is a cross-section image acquired within a range from a surface of a side opposite to a surface on the base material layer side up to a portion at a thickness of 30% when the total thickness of the first polyolefin layer is defined as 100%, and a ratio of a total area of island portions of the sea-island structures is between 25% or more and 35% or less in the cross-section image after the adhesive film for metal terminal is left standing in a heating and pressurizing environment at a temperature of 190 degrees C and a surface pressure of 0.016 MPa for 12 seconds and further left standing in an environment at a temperature of 25 degrees C for 1 hour. However, these are taken to be test conditions and are not being given patentable weight. In the present case HIRAKI teaches the same adhesive film with the sea-island structures, and is taken to therefore have the same properties as claimed.
HIRAKI teaches the base material layer is the layer 11. HIRAKI teaches a thickness of the polypropylene layer 11 being 15-80 microns, more preferably 20-70 microns (page 9 lines 22-26). This is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed value of 10-50 microns. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
HIRAKI teaches the acid-modified propylene layer 12 has a total thickness of the range 0.7-3.5 of the total thickness of the polypropylene layer 12 is 1 (page 10 lines 34-36). Preferably the thickness of the layer is 10-40 microns (page 10 lines 38-40). Therefore HIRAKI does not explicitly teach the first and second polyolefin layers have a thickness of 50-80 microns.
MUROI teaches a battery element that includes electrode and terminals, the terminals having a lamination film and sealed portion (abstract). The tab sealant 40 is the laminate of layered bodies 41, 42, and 43 (paragraph 0046). The innermost layer 41 is formed of an acid modified polyolefin resin (paragraph 0060). The thickness of the innermost layer 41 in a range of 10-300 microns (paragraph 0064). If the thickness is less than 10 microns, the heat sealing with the lead is insufficient, if the thickness exceeds 300 microns, a larger amount of heat becomes needed during heat sealing, causing deterioration of the moisture barrier properties (paragraph 0064). Similarly the outermost layer may be an acid modified polyolefin resin (paragraph 0067). The thickness of the outermost layer 43 is 10-300 microns (paragraph 0069). If the thickness is less than 10 microns, filling of the resin into the lead end portion during heat sealing becomes insufficient, if the thickness is greater than 300 microns, a larger amount of heat becomes necessary during heat sealing leading to cost increase (paragraph 0069). The range of 10-300 microns for the layers 41 and 43 are taken to be overlapping ranges with the claimed value of 50-80 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the acid modified polypropylene layers 12 of HIRAKI with those of MUROI as these are a simple substitution of one known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
HIRAKI teaches both the claimed first and second polyolefin layers are acid modified polypropylene resin layers. Therefore HIRAKI does not explicitly teach that the second polyolefin layer is a polypropylene resin.
OYAMA teaches a tab lead film in which the decrease of adhesion force between a metal terminal and the lead tab is prevented (abstract). The film comprises a surface layer 11, a core layer 12, and a surface layer 13 (paragraph 0017). The surface layer 11 is a layer that comes into contact with the metal terminal and is composed of an acid-modified polyolefin that has excellent metal adhesion (paragraph 0017). The core layer 12 may then include a polyolefin resin (paragraph 0024). The surface layer 13 is the layer that becomes the outermost layer, and does not contact the metal terminal, and is a layer that is heat-sealed to a laminate film which is an outer packaging material of the battery (paragraph 0027). The surface layer 13 may be a polyolefin resin (paragraph 0028). When the sealant layer of the laminate film, of the packaging material of the battery, has good adhesion, a polyolefin resin may be selected as the main component of the surface layer 13 (paragraph 0027). In one example the surface layer A was an acid-modified polypropylene, the core layer was polypropylene, and the surface layer C was polypropylene (paragraph 0035).
At the time the invention was filed, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the acid-modified polypropylene layer that does not contact the metal terminal of HIRAKI with the polypropylene surface layer of OYAMA as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results, specifically OYAMA teaches that either an acid modified polyolefin, or regular polyolefin may be used, and motivates one to choose the polyolefin resin when the sealant layer of the laminant has good adhesion (see OYAMA paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 2. HIRAKI teaches the cross section of the polypropylene layer 11 is observed as seen in Figure 11 (page 7 lines 6-9). As seen in Figure 11, there is a scale of 5 microns, and the islands have an average particle size of at least more than 0.3 microns.
With respect to claims 3-4. HIRAKI does not explicitly teach a deviation of particle size of 0.3 or less, or a circularity of 0.75 or more. However, HIRAKI teaches the sea island structure is shown in the cross section (page 7 lines 8-9). Figure 11 then shows the islands have a close deviation, and a high degree of circularity. Further the sea island structure is beneficial for improving the electrolytic solution resistance and adhesion to the packaging material and the metal terminal (page 7 lines 19-22). Therefore controlling the deviation in size and circularity would have been a matter of routine optimization at the time the invention was filed in order to create a more uniform composition, and thereby improving the electronic solution resistance and adhesion.
With respect to claim 5 and 7. MUROI teaches the thickness of the innermost and outermost layers are 10-300 microns (paragraphs 0064 and 0069). This overlaps the claimed range of 50-60 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 8. HIRAKI teaches the thickness of the adhesive film 1 for metal terminals is preferably 55-150 microns (page 4 line 47 and page 5 lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 9. HIRAKI teaches the adhesive film 1 may contain a pigment in the acid modified propylene layer 12 (page 31-39).
With respect to claim 12-13. HIRAKI teaches the adhesive for the terminals (abstract). The terminal is metal and is electrically connected to an electrode of a battery element (page 3 lines 8-10). The metal terminal protrudes outside the packaging material 3 (page 3 lines 22-25). The terminal may connect to either the positive or negative electrode (page 13 lines 10-13). The battery further includes at least an electrolyte (page 15 lines 15-18). The packaging material 3 then seals the battery element (page 15 lines 16-17).
With respect to claim 15. HIRAKI teaches the thickness of the polypropylene layer 11 being 15-80 microns (page 9 lines 22-26) and MUROI teaches the thickness of the innermost and outermost layers are 10-300 microns (paragraphs 0064 and 0069).
MUROI teaches that the specific thickness of the innermost and outermost layer may be optimized in order to have the desire filling during the heat sealing, but does not need too much heat for the heat sealing (paragraph 0069). Therefore the ratio of thickness to the base material to the polyolefin layers may be adjusted as a matter of routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 5-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 5-7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of HIRAKI and MUROI have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of HIRAKI, MUROU, and OYAMA (WO 2019/078155 A1).
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks that the claims have been amended to recite that the second polyolefin layer is a polypropylene resin. In contrast Applicant argues that HIRAKI only teaches using acid-modified polypropylene resin as each layer 12. Further on page 7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argues that HIRAKI does not consider a layer that is not acid-modified. This argument is persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are further made in view OYAMA.
OYAMA teaches an adhesion film for a metal terminal that includes a surface layer 11, a core layer 12, and a surface layer 13 (paragraph 0017). The surface layer 13 is a layer that does not contact the metal terminal, but rather contacts the sealant layer of the packaging material of a battery (paragraph 0027). When the sealant layer of the laminate film, of the packaging material of the battery, has good adhesion, a polyolefin resin may be selected as the main component of the surface layer 13 (paragraph 0027). In one example the surface layer A was an acid-modified polypropylene, the core layer was polypropylene, and the surface layer C was polypropylene (paragraph 0035).
Therefore the OYAMA explicitly teaches the reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the claimed second polyolefin layer to be a non-acid modified polyolefin, and therefore this substitution would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
On page 7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues that the claimed layers provided unexpected results over HIRAKI. However, the Arguments of unexpected results are not found to be persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 716.02(d). “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)”. In the present case the Example 1 of Table 1 referenced by the Applicant is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, in at least the thickness of the layers. Claim 1 recites that the first and second polyolefin layers have a thickness of 50-80 microns, and the base material layer has a thickness of 10-50 microns. However, Example 1 of the present Application has each of these layers being 50 microns. Therefore the showing of unexpected results are not over the entire range, and are not taken to be persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues the claimed ratio of a total area of island portions to sea structures I between 25-35%. Applicant argues that Comparative Example 2 fails to meet this limitation because it has only PPa layers. This argument is not persuasive. Initially the Examiner notes that there is more differences between Example 1 and Comparative Example 2 than just the PPa layers, specifically Comparative Example 2 has a thickness of the acid modified PPa layers being 25 microns, with a base material being 50 microns. Additionally the combination of HIRAKI with OYAMA then is taken to have the structure with both the PPa layer and PP layers and is taken to have the same properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722