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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 19, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 1 has been overcome by the amendment and is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not apply the teachings of Haag to Mochizuki or Tomiyama, since Haag is specifically directed to an epoxy adhesive (p. 10). However, while the solution described by Haag involves the use of an epoxy, Haag broadly teaches that a high glass transition temperature in a structural adhesive improves performance and prevents delamination (Haag [0006]).
Applicant contends that neither Tomiyama nor Mochizuki teaches a two-liquid polyurethane adhesive (p. 11). This is incorrect. Mochizuki explicitly describes the adhesive layer of Examples 1-4 as "a two-component curable urethane adhesive (polyol compound and aromatic isocyanate compound)," with no other components or additives indicated (Mochizuki [0282]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/027052 A1; all citations refer to English translation attached to the office action mailed March 20, 2025) in view of Tomiyama et al. (US 2003/0159773 A1) and Haag et al. (US 2017/0107408 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a packaging material for a power storage device comprising a base material layer (nylon film, substrate layer 1), an adhesive agent layer consisting of a two-liquid polyurethane-based adhesive (adhesive layer 2), a barrier layer (aluminum foil, barrier layer 3), and a heat-sealable resin layer (polypropylene film, fusible resin layer 4), in that order (Mochizuki Examples 1A-18A, [0282]-[0283] and Table 1A; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The materials are cold workable (Mochizuki [0295]) and the adhesive agent layer has moisture and heat resistance (Mochizuki [0307]).
Mochizuki does not teach the claimed moisture and heat resistance test results in a saturated water vapor environment at a temperature of 120° C. Mochizuki teaches that it is desirable to eliminate delamination of the adhesive in high temperature and high humidity environments (Mochizuki [0148]), and that testing under extreme temperature and humidity levels is a good indication of the moisture and heat resistance of the adhesive (Mochizuki [0307]).
In addition, methods of making flexible adhesive films heat- and moisture-resistant are well known. See, for example, Tomiyama (Tomiyama [0274] and Table 3; no peeling after 100 hours at 120°C, 100% humidity, and 2 atmospheres of pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to give the adhesive agent layer moisture resistance at the most extreme conditions possible, including at 120°C and 100% humidity.
Modified Mochizuki does not teach any particular glass transition temperature for the adhesive. Haag teaches that a high glass transition temperature in a structural adhesive improves performance and prevents delamination (Haag [0006]), where a "high glass transition temperature" is indicated as 110-150 °C (Haag [0039]), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the adhesive of modified Mochizuki by using a high glass transition temperature, including values within the range of the instant claim, to improve peel performance and prevent delamination.
Regarding claim 6, modified Mochizuki teaches that the material is suitable for use in high temperature and high humidity environments (Mochizuki [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the material in such an environment, including outdoors.
Regarding claim 9, the base material layer of modified Mochizuki includes a polyamide film (nylon, Mochizuki [0282]). Modified Mochizuki teaches that the base material layer may include a surface coating layer to improve electrolyte resistance or formability (Mochizuki [0124]), and that the material may be selected from a group including polyester resin (Mochizuki [0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include a surface coating layer in order to improve electrolyte resistance or formability, and it would have been obvious to try any of the finite number of options presented by Mochizuki, including polyester resin.
Regarding claim 10, modified Mochizuki teaches that lubricants (i.e., slip agents) may be added to the base material layer to improve formability (Mochizuki [0049]) and that they may be added singly or in combinations of two or more (Mochizuki [0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any combination of conventional additives for this layer, including using two or more lubricants.
Regarding claim 11, the base material layer (nylon film) of modified Mochizuki is 15 or 25 µm thick (Mochizuki Table 1A), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the barrier layer (aluminum foil) of modified Mochizuki is 35 µm thick (Mochizuki [0282]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, modified Mochizuki teaches that lubricants (i.e., slip agents) may be added to the base material layer, preferably on the surface, to improve formability (Mochizuki [0049]) and that they are preferably present at 5-14 mg/m2 (Mochizuki [0050]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add lubricant to the surface of the base material layer in order to improve formability. 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).
Regarding claim 14, the heat-sealable resin layer of modified Mochizuki comprises polypropylene (Mochizuki [0283]), which has a polyolefin backbone.
Regarding claim 15, the heat-sealable resin layer of modified Mochizuki comprises polypropylene (Mochizuki [0283]), which is a polyolefin.
Regarding claim 16, modified Mochizuki teaches that the resins in the sealant layer may be used in combinations of two or more (Mochizuki [0119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any combination of appropriate resins in the sealant layer of modified Mochizuki, including a combination of two or more.
Regarding claim 17, modified Mochizuki teaches that the sealant layer may include multiple layers of the same or different resins (Mochizuki [0137]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate number of layers, including 2 or more.
Regarding claim 18, modified Mochizuki teaches that adding a lubricant to the sealant layer improves moldability, and that the lubricants can be used alone or in combination (Mochizuki [0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add any conventional lubricant, including combinations of more than one lubricant, to the sealant layer of Mochizuki in order to improve moldability.
Regarding claim 19, modified Mochizuki teaches that adding a lubricant, alone or in combinations of two or more, to the sealant layer improves moldability, and that suitable lubricants include saturated fatty acid amides and unsaturated fatty acid amides (Mochizuki [0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add any conventional lubricant, including combinations of more than one lubricant, to the sealant layer of Mochizuki in order to improve moldability.
Regarding claim 20, the barrier layer of Mochizuki comprises aluminum foil A8021 (Mochizuki [0282]), which is an aluminum alloy foil.
Regarding claim 21, modified Mochizuki teaches that the sealant layer includes comprises polypropylene (Mochizuki [0283]), which is a polyolefin, and that the resins in the sealant layer may be used in combinations of two or more (Mochizuki [0119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any combination of appropriate resins in the sealant layer of Mochizuki, including a blend of two or more.
Regarding claim 22, modified Mochizuki teaches that the material is intended to be used as a packaging material for a battery including electrodes and an electrolyte (Mochizuki [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the material for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 23, modified Mochizuki teaches a method of manufacturing a packaging material for a power storage device comprising laminating a base material layer (nylon film, substrate layer 1), an adhesive agent layer consisting of a two-liquid polyurethane-based adhesive (adhesive layer 2), a barrier layer (aluminum foil, barrier layer 3), and a heat-sealable resin layer (polypropylene film, fusible resin layer 4), in that order (Mochizuki Examples 1A-18A, [0282]-[0283] and Table 1A; Fig. 1).
The materials are cold workable (Mochizuki [0295]), and the adhesive agent layer has moisture and heat resistance (Mochizuki [0307]).
Mochizuki does not teach the claimed moisture and heat resistance test results in a saturated water vapor environment at a temperature of 120° C. Mochizuki teaches that it is desirable to eliminate delamination of the adhesive in high-temperature and high-humidity environments (Mochizuki [0148]), and that testing under extreme temperature and humidity levels is a good indication of the moisture and heat resistance of the adhesive (Mochizuki [0307]).
In addition, methods of making flexible adhesive films heat- and moisture-resistant are well known. See, for example, Tomiyama (Tomiyama [0274] and Table 3; no peeling after 100 hours at 120°C, 100% humidity, and 2 atmospheres of pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to give the adhesive agent layer moisture resistance at the most extreme conditions possible, including at 120°C and 100% humidity.
Modified Mochizuki does not teach any particular glass transition temperature for the adhesive. Haag teaches that a high glass transition temperature in a structural adhesive improves performance and prevents delamination (Haag [0006]), where a "high glass transition temperature" is indicated as 110-150 °C (Haag [0039]), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the adhesive of modified Mochizuki by using a high glass transition temperature, including values within the range of the instant claim, to improve peel performance and prevent delamination.
Regarding claim 24, modified Mochizuki teaches adding an adhesive layer (adhesive layer 5) between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable resin layer by sandwich lamination (Mochizuki [0283]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Mochizuki teaches the use of an adhesive layer 5 between the sealant layer 4 and the barrier layer 3 (Mochizuki [0283] and Fig. 4) and that the sealant layer may include multiple layers of the same or different resins (Mochizuki [0137]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate number of layers, including 2 or more.
Regarding claim 26, the base material layer (nylon film) of modified Mochizuki is 15 or 25 µm thick (Mochizuki Table 1A), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 27, modified Mochizuki teaches that the base material layer (nylon film or substrate layer) should be 3-50 µm (Mochizuki [0052]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any thickness within the disclosed range, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, the barrier layer (aluminum foil) of modified Mochizuki is 35 µm thick (Mochizuki [0282]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 29, modified Mochizuki teaches that the barrier layer should be 10-100 µm (Mochizuki [0062]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any thickness within the disclosed range, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722