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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rikiya (JP 2014049308A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Rikiya discloses a packaging material for a power storage device, comprising: at least
a substrate layer (base layer 1),
a barrier layer (3), and
a sealant layer (5) in this order (see Drawing 1),
wherein the barrier layer is a metal foil (such as in lines 42-55 which discloses a barrier layer comprising a metal foil) the sealant layer contains polypropylene as a first resin (see line 571-572 which discloses a sealant layer with poly propylene), and at least one resin, as a second resin, selected from a group consisting of a polyester, a polyamide, a polycarbonate, and a polyphenylene ether (see lines 571-572 which discloses polyglycolic acid (polyester) in the sealant layer), the sealant layer does not contain linear low density polyethylene (example 2 has no polyethylene).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Rikiya further discloses a modified polyproplyne/polyolefin that is modified by maleic acid (see lines 334-340).
Regarding claim 10, Rikiya teaches an adhesive layer (2) on the surface of the barrier layer (3). Such a configuration meets the claim limitation which requires a layer on the barrier layer. This layer, while not called an “anticorrosion” layer in Rikiya, will function as such as it provides a barrier to materials that may corrode the surface of the barrier layer.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that Applicant is claiming how the claimed structure is used. Such an intended use limitation does not further limit the claimed structure. In other words, Applicant is claiming that the packaging material is used for a solid state battery but does not explicitly state any structural limitations like the presence of a solid state battery.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nippon (US 2016/0197318).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Nippon discloses a packaging material for a power storage device, comprising:
at least a substrate layer (1),
a barrier layer (3), and
a sealant layer (4) in this order,
wherein the sealant layer contains a component (A) that is a polyamide-polyolefin graft copolymer or a cycloolefin-olefin copolymer and having a melting point of 175°C or more (see paragraph 126 which discloses that the sealant layer can further include a cyclic polyolefin/olefin copolymer such as, among others, butadiene cyclohexadiene which has a melting point above 175C) and a component (B) that is at least one resin selected from a group consisting of a polyethylene resin and a polypropylene resin (see paragraph 38 which discloses a (C) component can include a polypropylene resin).
Regarding claim 5, Nippon further discloses:
the component (A) contains an ethylene/cycloolefin copolymer (as described in paragraph 126 which disclose cycloolefin/ethylene copolymers);
the component (B) contains the polypropylene resin (as described in the rejection of claim 1 above); and
the sealant layer further contains a component (C) that is a compatibilizer having a site compatible with the ethylene/cycloolefin copolymer and a site compatible with the polypropylene resin (see paragraph 38 which discloses component (C) is a material similar to that of the component C of the instant invention)
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon (US 2016/0197318).
Regarding claim 4, Nippon further discloses the component (A) contains a cycloolefin-olefin copolymer (as described in paragraph 126) ; and
a content of the component (A) in the sealant layer is 5 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the component (B) (see paragraphs 31 and
34 which disclose content of components A and B). Nippon does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed ranges, but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikiya (JP 2014049308A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Suzuta (US 2013/0209868).
Regarding claim 9, Rikiya further discloses the sealant layer contains the polyester and/or the polyamide (as described in the rejection of claim 6 above); and
Rikiya discloses the preference for keeping moisture from crossing into the battery from the exterior (lines 284-292) and teaches forming a crystallinity in the sealant layer (lines 56-66), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed crystallinity.
Suzuta also discloses a packaging material for a battery (see abstract).
Suzuta teaches, like Rikiya, that moisture permeation in a battery packaging is not preferable (paragraph 370). Suzuta goes on to teach a polymer containing sealant layer (thermoplastic resin layer TPR) that has a crystallinity of less than 60% which inhibits the occurrence of whitening in the thermoplastic resin which can produce cracks and facilitate moisture permeation (paragraphs 30 and 690-691).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the crystallinity below 60% as taught by Suzuta in the sealant layer of Rikiya in order to avoid whitening/cracking of the sealant layer and permitting moisture permeation.
Furthermore, modified Rikiya does not teach the claimed range, but does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikiya (JP 2014049308A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Yamada (US 7,285,334).
Regarding claims 11, Rikiya further discloses when the substrate layer side of the packaging material for a power storage device is outermost and the sealant layer side thereof is innermost (as depicted in Drawing 1). Rikiyai, however, does not teach an adsorbent layer on the inside of the barrier layer.
Yamada also discloses an insulating material for a battery (see abstract).
Yamada teaches layered battery packaging material, similar to that of Rikiya. Yamada teaches a layered structure which includes an adsorbent material on the barrier layer (such as zinc, see col. 46 lines 12-25) and teaches that such a feature assists in adsorbing corrosive gases that evolve from the battery and reduce the corrosion that occurs on the barrier layer (col. 46 lines 12-25).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the adsorbent material of Yamada to the inner surface of the barrier layer of Rikiya in order to adsorb corrosive gases that evolve from the battery and reduce barrier layer corrosion. Furthermore, it is noted that Yamada teaches a material, such as zinc, which is capable of adsorbing hydrogen sulfide even if such an operational parameter is not taught by Nippon.
Regarding claim 15, Rikiya teaches the housing for a lithium battery, but does not explicitly teach a solid state battery.
Yamada teaches a number of batteries that are known in the art, including a solid electrolyte battery (see col. 1 lines 7-13).
As such, modifying the structure of Rikiyai to include the solid battery of Yamada would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known battery type for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikiya (JP 2014049308A with references made to the machine translation)
Regarding claim 12, Rikiya does not explicitly teach a sealant layer has a thickness of 10 μm to 100 μm, but does teach an overlapping range (see lines 513-514). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, Applicant argues that Rakiya is not anticipatory because it teaches away from utilizing a metal foil as a barrier layer. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. Rakiya is indeed an anticipatory reference even though it disparages the metal foil. See MPEP §2131.05 which states “A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725