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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 18, 2026, has been entered.
Specification
The objection to the specification has been overcome by the amendment and is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed February 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 15, and 23 under 35 USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Foukase, Mochizuki, and Kouka.
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, 3-6, 15, 23, and 39-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/027052 A1; citations refer to translation attached to the office action mailed April 21, 2025) in view of Fukase et al. (US 2018/0162100 A1) and Kouka et al. (US 2019/0326564 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a laminated battery packaging material comprising a substrate layer (base layer 1), a barrier layer (barrier layer 3), and a sealant layer (heat fusible resin layer 4) in that order (Mochizuki [0141] and Figs. 5-8).
Mochizuki does not teach the adhesive composition of the instant claim. Mochizuki teaches that the adhesive layer 2 may include polyol compounds such as polyester polyol (Mochizuki [0158]) and isocyanurates of isophorone diisocyanate (Mochizuki [0159]), and that it is desirable to increase the high-temperature performance of the adhesive layer (Mochizuki [0148]). Fukase is directed to an adhesive for a metal foil laminate for packaging batteries (Fukase Abstract). Fukase teaches an adhesive layer for a battery packing laminate comprising a reaction product of a polyester polyol and an isocyanurate of isophorone diisocyanate (Fukase Examples 9-11, Table 3). As no other diisocyanates are indicated, it is assumed that approximately 100% of the isocyanate groups derived from isophorone diisocyanate, which falls within the range of the instant claim. Fukase teaches that this composition has excellent heat resistance (Fukase [0012]). 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 adhesive composition of Fukase in the laminate of Mochizuki in order to improve heat resistance.
Modified Mochizuki does not teach the claimed NCO/OH ratios. Kouka is directed to an adhesive for a metal foil laminate battery packaging material (Kouka Abstract and [0001]). Kouka teaches that NCO/OH ratios of 10 or more, which overlaps the range of the instant claim, improve heat resistance of the adhesive layer (Kouka [0059]). 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 increase the NCO/OH ratio above 10, including to values within the range of the instant claim, to increase heat resistance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mochizuki does not teach that the polyfunctional isocyanate must include an adduct of tolylene diisocyanate. Kouka teaches that blending aromatic alicyclic polyisocyanates (such as isophorone diisocyanate) with polymers (i.e. adducts) of aromatic polyisocyanates (such as tolylene diisocyanate) can improve solution and heat resistance of such a polymer (Kouka [0052]-[0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include any of the indicated aromatic polyisocyanates, including adducts of tolylene diisocyanate, to the laminate of modified Mochizuki, in order to improve the solution and heat resistance of the laminate.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mochizuki teaches that the preferred ratio of the isocyanato groups of the aromatic to alicyclic components is 1-6:1 (Kouka [0056]), 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mochizuki does not teach the claimed mass per unit area of the adhesive. Modified Mochizuki teaches that an appropriate thickness for the adhesive layer 2 is 2-5 µm (Mochizuki [0057]). Applicant has indicated that a layer thickness of 1-10 µm corresponds to approximately 2-6 g/m2 ([0101]-[0102] of the instant specification). As both materials are densely-coated polyurethanes, and the preferred thickness range of modified Mochizuki falls entirely within the range of the instant specification, it is assumed that the area density of the adhesive layer of modified Mochizuki also falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the barrier layer of modified Mochizuki includes anticorrosion layers (corrosion resistant coatings 3a and 3b) on one or both surfaces (Mochizuki Figs. 5-8 and [0142]).
Regarding claim 15, the preferred substrate material (base material) of modified Mochizuki is polyester or polyamide (Mochizuki [0047]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Mochizuki teaches that the packaging material encases a battery structure with electrodes protruding through the sealed flange (Mochizuki [0137]).
Regarding claim 39, modified Mochizuki does not teach that the polyfunctional isocyanate must consist of IPDI-n and an adduct of toylylene diisocyanate. 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 appropriate combination, including only IPDI-n and an adduct of toylylene diisocyanate.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, modified Mochizuki teaches that the preferred ratio of the isocyanato groups of the aromatic to alicyclic components is 1-6:1 (Kouka [0056]), 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).
Regarding claim 42-47, the preferred substrate material (base material) of modified Mochizuki is polyethylene terephthalate (a polyester) and/or nylon (a polyamide) (Mochizuki [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the finite number of substrates listed by modified Mochizuki, including PET or nylon.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Fukase and Kouka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Utena (JP 2015/179618 A; citations refer to translation attached to the office action mailed April 21, 2025).
Regarding claim 38, modified Mochizuki does not teach the use of the material for a solid-state battery. However, modified Mochizuki does not limit the type of battery beyond lithium-ion, and the use of such laminate film to enclose solid-state pouch batteries is well known. See Utena, Fig. 2 and [0024]-[0026]. 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 laminate material of modified Mochizuki for any conventional purpose, including for solid-state batteries.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 15, 23, and 39-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Kouka.
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a laminated battery packaging material comprising a substrate layer (base layer 1), a barrier layer (barrier layer 3), and a sealant layer (heat fusible resin layer 4) in that order (Mochizuki [0141] and Figs. 5-8). Mochizuki does not teach the adhesive composition of the instant claim. Mochizuki teaches that the adhesive layer 2 may include polyol compounds such as polyester polyol (Mochizuki [0158]) and isocyanurates of isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI-n) (Mochizuki [0159]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the finite number of adhesives listed by modified Mochizuki, including polyester polyols with 100% IPDI-n.
Mochizuki does not teach the claimed NCO/OH ratios. Kouka teaches that NCO/OH ratios of 10 or more, which overlaps the range of the instant claim, improve heat resistance of the adhesive layer (Kouka [0059]). 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 increase the NCO/OH ratio above 10, including to values within the range of the instant claim, to increase heat resistance.
Regarding claim 3, Mochizuki does not teach that the polyfunctional isocyanate must include an adduct of tolylene diisocyanate. Kouka teaches that blending aromatic alicyclic polyisocyanates (such as isophorone diisocyanate) with polymers (i.e. adducts) of aromatic polyisocyanates (such as tolylene diisocyanate) can improve solution and heat resistance of such a polymer (Kouka [0052]-[0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include any of the indicated aromatic polyisocyanates, including adducts of tolylene diisocyanate, to the laminate of Mochizuki in order to improve the solution and heat resistance of the laminate.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mochizuki teaches that the preferred ratio of the isocyanato groups of the aromatic to alicyclic components is 1-6:1 (Kouka [0056]), 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mochizuki does not teach the claimed mass per unit area of the adhesive. Mochizuki teaches that an appropriate thickness for the adhesive layer 2 is 2-5 µm (Mochizuki [0057]). Applicant has indicated that a layer thickness of 1-10 µm corresponds to approximately 2-6 g/m2 ([0101]-[0102] of the instant specification). As both materials are densely-coated polyurethanes, and the preferred thickness range of modified Mochizuki falls entirely within the range of the instant specification, it is assumed that the area density of the adhesive layer of Mochizuki also falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the barrier layer of modified Mochizuki includes anticorrosion layers (corrosion resistant coatings 3a and 3b) on one or both surfaces (Mochizuki Figs. 5-8 and [0142]).
Regarding claim 15, the preferred substrate material (base material) of modified Mochizuki is polyester or polyamide (Mochizuki [0047]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Mochizuki teaches that the packaging material encases a battery structure with electrodes protruding through the sealed flange (Mochizuki [0137]).
Regarding claim 39, modified Mochizuki does not teach that the polyfunctional isocyanate must consist of IPDI-n and an adduct of toylylene diisocyanate. 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 appropriate combination, including only IPDI-n and an adduct of toylylene diisocyanate.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, modified Mochizuki teaches that the preferred ratio of the isocyanato groups of the aromatic to alicyclic components is 1-6:1 (Kouka [0056]), 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).
Regarding claim 42-47, the preferred substrate material (base material) of modified Mochizuki is polyethylene terephthalate (a polyester) and/or nylon (a polyamide) (Mochizuki [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the finite number of substrates listed by modified Mochizuki, including PET or nylon.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Kouka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Utena.
Regarding claim 38, Mochizuki does not teach the use of the material for a solid-state battery. However, Mochizuki does not limit the type of battery beyond lithium-ion, and the use of such laminate film to enclose solid-state pouch batteries is well known. See Utena, Fig. 2 and [0024]-[0026]. 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 laminate material of Mochizuki for any conventional purpose, including for solid-state batteries.
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
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights