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
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 3, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2 are withdrawn; claim 3 is amended; claim 8 is cancelled; and claims 11-13 are new; resulting in claims 3-7 and 9-13 pending for examination.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojiri, et al. (US 2015/0380692 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, and 9, Ojiri teaches a battery packaging material comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer (1), a metal layer (2; barrier layer), an insulating layer (3; cured resin layer), and a sealant layer (4; heat-sealable resin layer) laminated in that order (¶ [0023], Ln. 1-4). Ojiri teaches that the base material layer (1) may be formed from polyester resins including polybutylene terephthalate and polyamide resins including nylons (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-6), and that the base material layer (1) may be formed of a single layer resin film or a multilayered resin film (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-3). Ojiri further teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) is preferably formed from a resin composition including a modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0040], Ln. 4-7), and more preferably a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6). The modified polyolefin resin can be a polyolefin resin modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or acid anhydride (acid-modified polyolefin) (¶ [0049], Ln. 1-4). Ojiri further teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) includes a curing agent, which is not particularly limited as long as it cures the modified polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-2). Specifically, Examples 1-5 taught by Ojiri include a nylon film base layer, an aluminum foil metal layer, an insulating layer obtained by mixing a modified polyolefin resin and a diphenylmethane diisocyanate curing agent (curing agent has a C=N bond, is an isocyanate group-containing curing agent, and is a polyfunctional isocyanate compound), and a polypropylene film sealant layer (¶ [0138], Ln. 1, 15-17, 20-29 ¶ [0139], Ln. 1-4). Ojiri doesn’t teach a specific embodiment in which the material that forms the base material layer is polybutylene terephthalate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base material layer of Examples 1-5 to be a multilayer resin film including a layer of polybutylene terephthalate based on the teachings of Ojiri. Ojiri teaches that the material that forms the base material layer is not particularly limited as long as it has insulation quality (¶ [0025], Ln. 1-5). Ojiri teaches polybutylene terephthalate as an example of a material that may be used to form the base material layer (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-6) and further teaches that when the base material layer is formed of a multilayer film, the pinhole resistance and insulation quality of the packaging material is improved (¶ [0027], Ln. 3-6). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add an additional layer to the base material layer taught in Examples 1-5, and to use any of the materials listed by Ojiri as acceptable materials to form the base material layer to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include polybutylene terephthalate with reasonable expectation of success given that polybutylene terephthalate is expressly taught as a material capable of forming the base material layer.
While it is acknowledged that a value determined by dividing a piercing strength X (N) in the case of piercing the laminate from the base material layer side measured by a method in accordance with a provision of JIS Z1707:1997 by a thickness Y (µm) of the polybutylene terephthalate film of 1.02 N/µm or more is not expressly recited by Ojiri, the reference teaches the claimed battery packaging composition, including a substantially similar base material layer and insulating layer, which the instant specification indicates is essential to achieving the claimed property. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., a value of X/N of 1.02 N/µm or more would be implicitly achieved by a battery packaging material with the same composition. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the battery packaging material taught by Ojiri, the reference teaches a battery packaging material with substantially the same composition recognized by the instant specification as essential to achieving the claimed value of (X/Y) of 1.02 N/µm or more. Paragraph [0026] of the instant specification discusses the method for making the value (X/Y) to be 1.02 N/µm or more and recognizes that because polybutylene terephthalate films have higher flexibility compared to other films, the laminate is gradually stretched while resisting the force applied during cold molding, suppressing the occurrence of pinholes or cracks. Additionally, paragraph [0027] of the instant specification adds that when the base material layer is formed of a single layer of ether polyethylene terephthalate, pinholes are easily formed, and when the base layer is formed of a single layer of nylon, chemical resistance and insulation are low, but when polybutylene terephthalate film is used, the moldability is better. In regards to thickness of the base layer, paragraph [0032] of the instant specification teaches a thickness of the base layer of 10 µm to 40 µm, which is used as the value of Y. Further, with respect to the composition, paragraph [0060] of the instant specification explains that the cured resin layer is a cured product of a resin composition containing an acid-modified polyolefin. Paragraph [0083] of the instant specification teaches the thickness of the cured resin layer is preferably 2 µm to 20 µm. Examples 1-3 of the instant specification include cured resin layers including an acid-modified polypropylene including an epoxy or isocyanate curing agent, and having thicknesses ranging from 2 µm to 3 µm.
With respect to the use of polybutylene terephthalate films and pinhole resistance of the base material layer, Ojiri teaches that the first base material layer may be a multilayer film including polyester resin such as polybutylene terephthalate and polyamide resin such as nylon (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-6). As stated above, it would have been obvious to use a multilayer film including polybutylene terephthalate based on the teachings of Ojiri. With respect to the layered base material, Ojiri teaches that when the base material layer is formed of a multilayer film, the pinhole resistance and insulation quality of the packaging material is improved (¶ [0027], Ln. 3-6). With respect to the thickness of the base layer, Ojiri teaches that the thickness of the base material layer is preferably 12 µm to 30 µm (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-3).
With respect to the cured resin layer, Ojiri teaches an insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) is preferably formed from a resin composition including a modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0040], Ln. 4-7), and more preferably a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6), further teaching that the insulating layer includes a curing agent (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-2). Specifically, Examples 1-5 taught by Ojiri include an insulation layer including a diphenylmethane diisocyanate curing agent and having a thickness of 5 µm (¶ [0138], Ln. 19-29). Thus, Ojiri teaches a laminate with base material layer and insulating layer (cured resin layer) compositions and thicknesses substantially similar to the laminate of the instant specification. Therefore, Ojiri teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed value of (X/Y), where X is the piercing strength (N) of piercing the laminate from the base material layer side measured by a method in accordance with a provision of JIS Z1707:1997 and Y is the thickness (µm) of the polybutylene terephthalate film, of 1.02 N/µm or more.
Ojiri teaches that the battery packaging material comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer (1), a metal layer (2; barrier layer), an insulating layer (3; cured resin layer), and a sealant layer (4; heat-sealable resin layer) (¶ [0023], Ln. 1-4), teaching that the packaging material may further include an adhesive layer and moisture barrier resin layer (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-11). With respect to the thickness of the base layer, Ojiri teaches that the thickness of the base material layer is preferably 12 µm to 30 µm (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-3), within the claimed range of 10 µm to 40 µm. Using the preferred thickness for each layer, the minimum total thickness of the packaging material is 42.5 µm (excluding the adhesive layer and moisture barrier resin layer) and the maximum total thickness is 690 µm (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0030], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0059], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0114], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0118], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0128], Ln. 1-3), overlapping the claimed range of 45 µm to 120 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Ojiri teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the curing agent is not particularly limited as long as it cures the modified polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-2). Ojiri specifically teaches that examples of the curing agent including a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, a carbodiimide compound, an epoxy compound, and an oxazoline compound (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-5). Ojiri does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the curing agent is a compound including an oxazoline group-containing curing agent with a heterocyclic ring, an epoxy group-containing curing agent with a heterocyclic ring, an oxazoline group-containing curing agent with a C-O-C bond, an epoxy group-containing curing agent with a C-O-C bond, or a urethane resin with a C-O-C bond.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the curing agent of Examples 1-5 to be an oxazoline group-containing curing agent with a heterocyclic ring, an epoxy group-containing curing agent with a heterocyclic ring, an oxazoline group-containing curing agent with a C-O-C bond, an epoxy group-containing curing agent with a C-O-C bond, or a urethane resin with a C-O-C bond based on the teachings of Ojiri. Ojiri teaches that the curing agent is not particularly limited as long as it cures the modified polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-2). Ojiri teaches that the epoxy compounds used may be bisphenol A diglycidyl ether, modified bisphenol A diglycidyl ether, novolak glycidyl ether, glycerin polyglycidyl ether and polyglycerin polyglycidyl ether (epoxy group-containing curing agents with a heterocyclic ring and a C-O-C bond) (¶ [0055], Ln. 1-6) and that the oxazoline compounds used may be EPOCROS Series from Nippon Shokubai Co., Ltd. (oxazoline group-containing curing agents with a heterocyclic ring and a C-O-C bond) (¶ [0056], Ln. 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use any of the materials listed by Ojiri as acceptable materials use as the curing agent. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute one of the epoxy compounds or oxazoline compounds listed for the diphenylmethane diisocyanate curing agent with reasonable expectation of success given that the epoxy compounds and oxazoline compounds are expressly taught as materials capable of curing the modified polypropylene-based resin.
Regarding claim 10, Ojiri teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the base material layer (1) and metal layer (2; barrier layer) are layered in that order (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-4) or may further include an adhesive layer (5) between them to ensure rigid adhesion (¶ [0115], Ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Ojiri teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the acid-modified polyolefin resin of the insulating layer is preferably formed from a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6), specifically teaching the use of a maleic anhydride modified ethylene-propylene copolymer in Examples 1-5 (¶ [0138], Ln. 19-24).
Regarding claim 12, Ojiri teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the acid-modified polyolefin resin of the insulating layer is preferably formed from a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6). Ojiri teaches that the most preferred acid anhydrides used to modify the polypropylene-based resin are maleic anhydride and itaconic anhydride (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-6), specifically teaching the use of a maleic anhydride modified ethylene-propylene copolymer in Examples 1-5 (¶ [0138], Ln. 19-24).
Regarding claim 13, Ojiri teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. While it is acknowledged that a warpage height of the battery packaging material of less than 20 mm after being subjected to the claimed warp test is not expressly recited by Ojiri, the reference teaches the claimed battery packaging composition, including a substantially similar laminate and cured resin layer, which the instant specification indicates is essential to achieving the claimed property. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., a warpage height of the battery packaging material of less than 20 mm after being subjected to the claimed warp test would be implicitly achieved by a battery packaging material with the same composition. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the battery packaging material taught by Ojiri, the reference teaches a battery packaging material with substantially the same composition recognized by the instant specification as essential to achieving the claimed warpage height. Paragraphs [0023]-[0024] of the instant specification disclose that warping is effectively inhibited by the cured resin layer being provided between the barrier layer and heat-sealable resin layer. Regarding the composition of the cured resin layer, paragraph [0060] teaches that the cured resin layer contains an acid-modified polyolefin from the viewpoint of suppressing warp, further specifying that the polyolefin is preferably a propylene-based polyolefin containing 80 to 100 mol% propylene unit in paragraph [0063]. Paragraph [0066] adds that the preferred proportion of unsaturated carboxylic acid or acid anhydride in the acid-modified polyolefin is preferably 0.1 to 20% by mass. Regarding the curing agent, paragraph [0073] discloses that when using a curing agent containing an isocyanate group, the preferred content is 0.5 to 40% by mass in order to effectively suppress warp. Finally, paragraph [0042] of the instant specification teaches that the thickness of the base material layer is preferably 10 to 50 µm in order to suppress warp.
With respect to the position and composition of the cured resin layer, Ojiri teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) is positioned between the metal layer (2; barrier layer) and the sealant layer (4; heat-sealable resin layer) (¶ [0023], Ln. 1-4), further teaching that the insulating layer is preferably formed from a resin composition including a modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0040], Ln. 4-7), and more preferably a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6). Ojiri teaches that when the resin in propylene-based, it contains 80 to 100 mol% propylene unit (¶ [0085], Ln. 1-18). Specifically, in Examples 1-5, Ojiri teaches a modified polyolefin resin with an ethylene-propylene copolymer containing 2.1 mol% ethylene unit and including 3.0% by mass maleic anhydride. The curing agent used in these examples is diphenylmethane diisocyanate, including 31% by mass NCO (¶ [0138], Ln. 22-29).
With respect to the thickness of the base layer, Ojiri teaches that the thickness of the base material layer is preferably 12 µm to 30 µm (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-3). Thus, Ojiri teaches a battery packaging with a laminate and cured resin layer substantially similar to those of the instant specification. Therefore, Ojiri teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed warpage height of the battery packaging material of less than 20 mm after being subjected to the claimed warp test.
Claims 3, 5, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, et al. (EP 3 121 864 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Taniguchi teaches a power storage device packaging material (battery packaging material) for secondary battery such as a lithium ion battery, which includes a positive electrode, separator, negative electrode, and electrolyte (¶ [0001]-[0003], Ln. 5, 10, 16-17). Taniguchi teaches that the packaging is a laminate which includes a first base material layer (11), first adhesive layer (12), second base material layer (13), second adhesive layer (14), metal foil layer (15; barrier layer), anticorrosion treatment layer (16), sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer), and sealant layer (18; heat-sealable resin layer) in that order (¶ [0022], Ln. 41-50). In this case, the first base material layer (11), first adhesive layer (12), and second base material layer (13) together form the claimed base material layer. Taniguchi further teaches that the first base material layer (11) contains a polyester elastomer (¶ [0024], Ln. 14-15), which is composed of a hard segment and a soft segment (¶ [0025], Ln. 19). Taniguchi teaches that polybutylene terephthalate is particularly preferred for the hard segment because of its flexibility (¶ [0025], Ln, 19-21). The specific examples taught by Taniguchi include polyethylene terephthalate (Table 1). Taniguchi does not expressly teach a specific embodiment including polybutylene terephthalate in the first base material layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first base material layers of the examples taught by Taniguchi in Table 1 to substitute polybutylene terephthalate for the polyethylene terephthalate. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute polybutylene terephthalate for the polyethylene terephthalate with reasonable expectation of success as both are taught as acceptable materials for the first base material layer. One would be motivated to use polybutylene terephthalate as Taniguchi teaches that the material is particularly preferred for the hard segment because of its flexibility.
Taniguchi further teaches that the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) having a thermal laminate structure includes an acid-modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0055], Ln. 4-5). Specifically, Taniguchi teaches that the acid used to modify the polyolefin resin may include carboxylic acid (¶ [0056], Ln. 5-6). Taniguchi additionally teaches a sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) having a dry laminate structure which includes a two-liquid curing polyurethane adhesive similar to those included in the first adhesive layer (12) and second adhesive layer (14) of the of the packaging material (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-3). Taniguchi teaches that the two-liquid curing adhesive included in the first and second adhesive layers includes an isocyanate compound (including an oxygen atom and C=N bond) as a curing agent which reacts with a base resin containing a hydroxyl group (¶ [0036], Ln. 2-3). Taniguchi teaches that this reaction enables strong adhesion (¶ [0036], Ln. 6-7). Taniguchi does not expressly teach a sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) in which an acid-modified polyolefin resin and curing agent including an isocyanate compound are used together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) of Taniguchi to include a carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin, which would include a hydroxyl group, and a curing agent including an isocyanate compound (including an oxygen atom and C=N bond), as both components are taught by Taniguchi with respect to forming the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an acid-modified polyolefin resin containing a hydroxyl group could be used in combination with a curing agent containing an isocyanate group and would be motivated to combine these components in order to produce a sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) with strong adhesion.
While it is acknowledged that a value determined by dividing a piercing strength X (N) in the case of piercing the laminate from the base material layer side measured by a method in accordance with a provision of JIS Z1707:1997 by a thickness Y (µm) of the polybutylene terephthalate film of 1.02 N/µm or more is not expressly recited by Taniguchi, the reference teaches the claimed battery packaging composition, including a substantially similar base material layer and sealant adhesive layer, which the instant specification indicates is essential to achieving the claimed property. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., a value of X/N of 1.02 N/µm or more would be implicitly achieved by a battery packaging material with the same composition. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the battery packaging material taught by Taniguchi, the reference teaches a battery packaging material with substantially the same composition recognized by the instant specification as essential to achieving the claimed value of (X/Y) of 1.02 N/µm or more. Paragraph [0026] of the instant specification discusses the method for making the value (X/Y) to be 1.02 N/µm or more and recognizes that because polybutylene terephthalate films have higher flexibility compared to other films, the laminate is gradually stretched while resisting the force applied during cold molding, suppressing the occurrence of pinholes or cracks. Additionally, paragraph [0027] of the instant specification adds that when the base material layer is formed of a single layer of ether polyethylene terephthalate, pinholes are easily formed, and when the base layer is formed of a single layer of nylon, chemical resistance and insulation are low, but when polybutylene terephthalate film is used, the moldability is better. In regards to thickness of the base layer, paragraph [0032] of the instant specification teaches a thickness of the base layer of 10 µm to 40 µm, which is used as the value of Y.
Further, with respect to the composition, paragraph [0060] of the instant specification explains that the cured resin layer is a cured product of a resin composition containing an acid-modified polyolefin. Paragraph [0083] of the instant specification teaches the thickness of the cured resin layer is preferably 2 µm to 20 µm. Examples 1-3 of the instant specification include cured resin layers including an acid-modified polypropylene including an epoxy or isocyanate curing agent, and having thicknesses ranging from 2 µm to 3 µm.
With respect to the use of polybutylene terephthalate films and flexibility of the base material layer, Taniguchi teaches that the first base material layer is a polyester resin oriented film (¶ [0034], Ln. 3-4) and that the use of polybutylene terephthalate is particularly preferred because of its flexibility (¶ [0025], Ln. 19-21). Taniguchi further teaches that the second base material layer is a polyamide film with high strength and great stretchability (¶ [0038], Ln. 27-28), and, when Nylon 6 is used, good piercing strength (¶ [0039], Ln. 31-32). With respect to the layered base material, the base material layer of Taniguchi is not formed of a single layer as it includes a first base material layer and second base material layer with an adhesive layer between them. Taniguchi teaches that the base material layer prevents the creation of pinholes and achieves good formability in the packaging material (¶ [0012], Ln. 19-22). With respect to the thickness of the base material layer, Taniguchi teaches that the thickness of the first base material layer is preferably 10 µm to 15 µm (¶ [0035], Ln. 7-8), the thickness of the second base material layer is preferably 10 µm to 15 µm (¶ [0040], Ln. 34-35), and the thickness of the adhesive layer is preferably 3 µm to 7 µm (¶ [0042], Ln. 48-49), resulting in a total base material layer thickness of 23 µm to 37 µm.
With respect to the cured resin layer, Taniguchi teaches that the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) having a thermal laminate structure includes an acid-modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0055], Ln. 4-5). Additionally, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) of Taniguchi to include a carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin and a curing agent including an isocyanate compound in order to improve adhesion. With respect to the thickness of the cured resin layer, Taniguchi teaches a preferred thickness for the sealant adhesive layer of the dry laminate of 1 µm to 5 µm. Thus, Taniguchi teaches a laminate with base layer and sealant adhesive layer (cured resin layer) compositions and thicknesses substantially similar to the laminate of the instant specification. Therefore, Taniguchi teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed value of (X/Y), where X is the piercing strength (N) of piercing the laminate from the base material layer side measured by a method in accordance with a provision of JIS Z1707:1997 and Y is the thickness (µm) of the polybutylene terephthalate film, of 1.02 N/µm or more.
In looking to the thicknesses of each layer, Taniguchi teaches that the thickness of the first base material layer is preferably 10 µm to 15 µm (¶ [0035], Ln. 7-8), the thickness of the second base material layer is preferably 10 µm to 15 µm (¶ [0040], Ln. 34-35), and the thickness of the adhesive layer is preferably 3 µm to 7 µm (¶ [0042], Ln. 48-49), resulting in a total base material layer thickness of 23 µm to 37 µm, within the claimed range of 10 µm to 40 µm. Using the preferred thickness for each layer of the packaging material, the minimum total thickness of the packaging material is 63.02 µm and the maximum total thickness is 254.5 µm (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0037], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0040], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0042], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0049], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0053], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0057], Ln. 1-3, ¶ [0066], Ln. 1-2), overlapping the claimed range of 45 µm to 120 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Taniguchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the metal foil layer (15; barrier layer) is formed on a surface of the second base material layer (13) via a second adhesive layer (14) (base material layer and barrier layer are bonded with an adhesive agent layer interposed therebetween).
Regarding claims 11-12, Taniguchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the preferred acid used to modify the polyolefin resin is maleic anhydride (¶ [0056], Ln. 5-7). Taniguchi specifically teaches the use of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene resin as the sealant adhesive layers in the examples (¶ [0106], Ln. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Taniguchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above and further teaches that the packaging material has good formability while reducing warpage (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-2). Reducing warpage is beneficial as warpage leads to suction error or heat sealing defect (¶ [0009], Ln. 1-2). Taniguchi teaches that when the first base material layer includes both a polyester elastomer and/or an amorphous polyester, warpage can be significantly reduced (¶ [0024], Ln. 3-7), specifically teaching that the polyester elastomer includes a hard segment (preferably polybutylene terephthalate) and a soft segment, and when the soft segment is included in more than 20 mass%, the amount of warpage is more likely to be reduced (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-5). Taniguchi evaluates the warpage with the criteria that warpage less than 50 mm receives an “A” rating (¶ [0110], 6-10). As shown in Table 3, examples including a base layer with a higher content of polyester elastomer or amorphous polyester have “A” ratings for warpage. Taniguchi does not expressly teach the warpage height of the examples, and thus does not expressly teach that the warpage height is less than 20 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to target warpage heights less than 20 mm based on the teachings of Taniguchi. Taniguchi teaches a packaging material with a specified base material layer composition with the goal of reducing warpage. Further, Taniguchi teaches that when the soft segment of the polyester elastomer is included at more than 20 mass%, the amount of warpage is more likely to be reduced (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust the soft segment component in order to lower the warpage height as much as possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the warpage as much as possible in order to prevent suction error and heat sealing defect.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, et al. (EP 3 121 864 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ojiri, et al. (US 2015/0380692 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, and 9, Taniguchi teaches all of the limitations of claims 3 and 5 above. Taniguchi further teaches that the polyolefin resin in the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) may be a polyethylene or polypropylene resin modified with a carboxylic acid or acid anhydride (¶ [0056], Ln. 1-6). Taniguchi does not expressly teach a curing agent used in the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) that has a heterocyclic ring and is at least one member selected from the group consisting of an oxazoline group-containing curing agent and an epoxy group-containing curing agent; a curing agent that has a C-O-C bond and is at least one member selected from the group consisting of an oxazoline group-containing curing agent, an epoxy group-containing curing agent, and a urethane resin; or a curing agent that is a polyfunctional isocyanate compound such as isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), tolyene diisocyanate (TDI), diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI), a polymerized or nurated product thereof, a mixture thereof, or a copolymerized product thereof with another polymer.
Ojiri teaches a battery packaging material comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer (1), a metal layer (2; barrier layer), an insulating layer (3; cured resin layer), and a sealant layer (4; heat-sealable resin layer) laminated in that order (¶ [0023], Ln. 1-4). Ojiri teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) is preferably formed from a resin composition including a modified polyolefin resin (¶ [0040], Ln. 4-7), and more preferably a polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-6). The modified polyolefin resin can be a polyolefin resin modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or acid anhydride (¶ [0049], Ln. 1-4). Ojiri further teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) includes a curing agent, which is not particularly limited as long as it cures the modified polypropylene-based resin (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-2). Ojiri specifically teaches that examples of the curing agent including a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, a carbodiimide compound, an epoxy compound, and an oxazoline compound (¶ [0051], Ln. 1-5). More specifically, Ojiri teaches that the polyfunctional isocyanate compound may include isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), tolyene diisocyanate (TDI), diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI), a polymerized or nurated product thereof, a mixture thereof, or copolymers of these compounds with other polymers (¶ [0052], Ln. 3-8). Ojiri teaches that the insulating layer (3; cured resin layer) exhibits high heat resistance and high mechanical strength and flexibility, which prevents deterioration of the packaging material (¶ [0050], Ln. 21-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a curing agent taught by Ojiri to cure the sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) including an acid-modified polyolefin of Taniguchi. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a curing agent such as a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, a carbodiimide compound, an epoxy compound, and an oxazoline compound to cure the modified resin based on the teachings of Ojiri. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a polyfunctional isocyanate compound selected from the group including isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), tolyene diisocyanate (TDI), diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI), a polymerized or nurated product thereof, a mixture thereof, or copolymers of these compounds with other polymers based on the examples provided by Ojiri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include one of these curing agents in order to form a sealant adhesive layer (17; cured resin layer) with high heat resistance and high mechanical strength and flexibility, which prevents deterioration of the packaging material.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 with respect to unexpected results and the inherency of the piercing strength have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the claimed piercing strength would not be inherent to the packaging materials of both Ojiri and Taniguchi, that the instant invention has unexpected results regarding warpage and moldability over the packaging material taught by Ojiri and Taniguchi, and that the experimental results are commensurate in scope with the claims. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 3, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 3 based upon Ojiri and Taniguchi under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the last Office action as detailed in the response below.
With respect to the arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks filed April 3, 2026, that the claimed piercing strength would not be inherent to the packaging materials of both Ojiri and Taniguchi, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that both Ojiri and Taniguchi teach a base material layer including a single layer of polybutylene terephthalate. However, Ojiri teaches that the first base material layer may be a multilayer film (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-6) and that when the base material layer is formed of a multilayer film, the pinhole resistance and insulation quality of the packaging material is improved (¶ [0027], Ln. 3-6). Similarly, the base material layer of Taniguchi is not formed of a single layer as it includes a first base material layer and second base material layer with an adhesive layer between them. Taniguchi teaches that the base material layer prevents the creation of pinholes and achieves good formability in the packaging material (¶ [0012], Ln. 19-22). Additionally, both references teach substantially similar base material layer compositions, base material layer thicknesses, cured resin layer compositions, and cured resin layer thicknesses to the examples provided in the instant specification, as detailed in the rejections above. The Applicant additionally points to Reference Example 1 of the instant specification to demonstrate that the base materials of Ojiri and Taniguchi would not inherently achieve the claimed piercing strength. However, in looking to Reference Example 1, the example includes a single layer of PBT as a base material and excludes a cured resin layer. Thus, Reference Example 1 is not comparable to the packaging materials of Ojiri and Taniguchi. Further, the Applicant points to the declaration filed April 3, 2026 to demonstrate the packaging materials of Ojiri and Taniguchi would not inherently achieve the claimed piercing strength, however it is noted that the declaration does not provide evidence regarding the piercing strength of Ojiri or Taniguchi. For the same reasons indicated above, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the argument, see page 10 of the remarks, that the instant invention has unexpected results regarding warpage over the packaging material taught by Ojiri and Taniguchi, this argument is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above, the warpage height is inherent to the battery packaging of Ojiri. As Ojiri teaches a substantially similar laminate composition, and given the teachings in the instant specification, the battery packaging of Ojiri would inherently have a warpage height of less than 20 mm. While it is acknowledged that Comparative Examples 1 and 2 in the instant specification are exposed to a higher temperature for a longer period of time, it is also noted that these examples do not include a cured resin layer, which the instant specification teaches as important in reducing warpage. Thus, Comparative Examples 1 and 2 do not provide evidence that the battery packing material of Ojiri would not inherently possess the claimed warpage test result.
Also included in the rejection above, Taniguchi teaches the goal of reducing warpage, further teaching base material layer compositions that reduce warpage. Although Taniguchi doesn’t teach specific warpage heights, the reference teaches targeting warpage heights under 50 mm. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to target warpage heights under 20 mm. The Applicant points to the combination temperature and time at which the polybutylene terephthalate films are exposed to 100 °C or more as resulting in the claimed warpage height, however, it is noted that the examples indicated as evidence of this also do not include a cured resin layer. While it is acknowledged that Comparative Examples 1 and 2 in the instant specification are exposed to a higher temperature for a longer period of time, these examples do not include a cured resin layer, which the instant specification teaches as important in reducing warpage. Thus, Comparative Examples 1 and 2 do not provide persuasive evidence of unexpected results regarding warpage with respect to the product of temperature and time.
With respect to the argument, see page 11 of the remarks, that the instant invention has unexpected results regarding moldability over the packaging material taught by Ojiri and Taniguchi, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that because the references do not expressly teach a piercing strength, the invention has unexpected moldability results over the prior art. Although the references do not expressly teach the piercing strength of the packaging materials, the property is considered inherent to the materials taught by both Ojiri and Taniguchi. Further, paragraph [0005] of the instant specification recognizes that excellent moldability is characterized by the property of being unlikely to generate pinholes during molding, which both references recognize. Ojiri teaches that when the base material layer is formed of a multilayer film, the pinhole resistance and insulation quality of the packaging material is improved (¶ [0027], Ln. 3-6) and Taniguchi teaches that the base material layer prevents the creation of pinholes and achieves good formability in the packaging material (¶ [0012], Ln. 19-22). The Applicant states that when piercing strength is within the claimed range, moldability is superior, further stating that the product of temperature and time are modified to arrive at claimed piercing strength. However, in looking to Table 1, it is not clear how modifying product of temperature and time results in superior piercing strength, as Comparative Examples 1 and 2 include high products of temperature and time and varying values of X/Y, both within the claimed range. The Applicant has the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness (MPEP 716.02(b)). Additionally, the laminate used in Example 1 of the instant specification includes an aluminum foil barrier layer chemically treated with a phenol resin, a chromium fluoride compound, and phosphoric acid; an adhesive including a polyol compound and aromatic isocyanate-based compound; a resin layer including maleic anhydride modified polypropylene and an epoxy compound, and a polypropylene film included on the resin layer. Thus, the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP 716.02(d)).
With respect to the argument, see page 12 of the remarks, that the results are commensurate in scope with the claims, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the experimental data would reasonably extend to all acid-modified polyolefins and reasonably extend to the claimed thicknesses of the base layer and total laminate. The Applicant points to the declaration filed April 3, 2026, in which it is stated that “when the cured resin layer comprises an acid-modified polypropylene, the unexpected results will still be achieved, specifically the claimed superior piercing strength.” This argument is not persuasive as no evidence is provided supporting the use of any acid-modified polyolefin. Conclusory statements that results were "unexpected," unsupported by objective factual evidence, were considered but were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value (MPEP 716.01(c)).
Regarding the base material and total laminate thicknesses, the declaration provides additional experimental data for base layer thicknesses ranging from 10 µm to 35 µm and total laminate thickness ranging from 80 µm to 115 µm, further stating that one of ordinary skill in the art “would reasonably believe” that when the thicknesses are within the claimed ranges, “the unexpected results will still be achieved.” This argument is not persuasive. While the additional data provides a range of base thickness layer of 10 µm to 35 µm and a total laminate thickness of 80 µm to 118 µm, there is no support provided for the full ranges claimed, particularly for the lower end of the total laminate thickness. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)(II)). Conclusory statements that results were "unexpected," unsupported by objective factual evidence, were considered but were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value (MPEP 716.01(c)).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights