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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 6-9 and 24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: These claims are directed to a component A of a sealant layer that contains polypropylene or a component A of a sealant layer consisting of polyester, a polyamide, a polycarbonate or a polyphenylene. This species does not contain the elected invention where component A contains a cycloolefin/olefin copolymer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 6-9 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ethylene/cycloolefin copolymer" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites that component B is at least one of polyethylene resin and polypropylene resin and then goes on to claim a component C that is a compatibilizer have a site compatible with the polypropylene resin, but makes no mention of a site compatible with the polyethylene resin. Claimed this way, it seems that initially, Applicant is claiming that component B can be one of two materials, but then when defining component C, positively recites that one of the two materials possible for Component B (polypropylene resin) is present. This renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the polypropylene resin is present or not. In the first limitation, Applicant claims that it may or may not be there, then claims that it is there.
In another interpretation of this limitation, Applicant is claiming that Component B can be one of two materials (such as polyethylene resin), but that component C (compatibilizer) does not have to have a site compatible with the polyethylene resin, but only a polypropylene resin which is not required to be present. This renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear what materials are present and what the compatibilizer sites are compatible with.
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) 1, 4, 5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP 2013206878 A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Coates (US 2019/0300631).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Yamashita discloses a packaging material for a power storage device, comprising:
at least a substrate layer (base layer, see abstract),
a barrier layer (metal layer, see abstract), and
a sealant layer in this order (sealant layer, see abstract), wherein
the sealant layer contains a component (A) that is a cycloolefin-olefin copolymer (such as a ethylene/norbornene copolymer, see lines 265-267) and having a glass transition temperature of 75°C or more (see lines 268-269 which disclose a preference for a glass transition temperature between 75-190C),
a component (B) that is at least one resin selected from a group consisting of a polyethylene resin and a polypropylene resin (see lines 313-318 which disclose the inclusion of polypropylene in the sealant layer), the component (A) is incompatible with the Component (B) (ethylene/norbornene copolymer is incompatible with polypropylene), and 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 lines 289-300 which discloses a compatibilizer that increases the compatibility of polypropylene with cycloolefin/olefin copolymer).
Yamashita, however, does not the claimed composition of the component (C). More specifically, Yamashita does not teach: wherein the component (C) is (a) a block copolymer composed of polyethylene units and polypropylene units, (b)a block copolymer composed of polyethylene units and ethylene-butylene copolymer units, or (c) a block copolymer composed of polyethylene units and ethylene 1-octene copolymer units.
Coates also discloses ethyelene/propylene copolymers (see abstract).
Coates teaches the problems associated with adhering polypropylene and polyethyelen (paragraphs 6-7) and goes on to teach that polyethylene/polypropylene block copolymers are beneficial in compatibilizing or adhering polyethylene and polypropylene materials (paragraph 10).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the compatibilizer of Yamashita with the block copolymer comprising polyethylene and polypropylene of Coates in order to bind/compatibilize the polypropylene and polyethylene/norbornene copolymer of Yamashita. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known compatibilizer for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita further discloses the component (A) contains a cycloolefin-olefin copolymer (as described in lines 265-267); 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 lines 333-336 which disclose content of components A and B). Yamashita 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)).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita further discloses an anticorrosion treatment on each surface of the metal barrier layer (lines 149-152).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita does not explicitly teach a sealant layer has a thickness of 10 μm to 100 μm, but does teach an overlapping range (see lines 147-148). 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, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP 2013206878 A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Coates (US 2019/0300631) in view of Yamada (US 7,285,334).
Regarding claims 11, Yamashita 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). Yamashita, 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 Yamashita. 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 Yamashita 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 claims 13 and 15, Yamashita 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 Yamashita 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 10-15 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights