DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/04/2025, has been entered. Claim 1, 6, and 7 have been amended. Claims 8 and 9 are new. Claims 1-9 are now pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the peel strength between the first adhesive layer and the first metal base body is evaluated using a first 180 degree peel test in which the sealing film is peeled off from the first metal base body at a peeling speed of 50 mm/min, the first 180 degree peel test applied after the sealing film and the adhered first metal base body are immersed in the electrolyte mixture at 85°C for 7 days, the electrolyte mixture including an electrolyte containing 1.0 mol/liter of LiPF6 mixed with 0.2% by mass (2000 ppm) of pure water.”, which is in regard to a method of testing peeling strength under extremely acidic test electrolyte (water and LiPF6 form hydrofluoric acid) which is outside the scope of the product, directed to a sealing film, and is thus attributed little patentable weight.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP-2015170428-A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Nakajima teaches a sealing film forming a seal between a first metal base body (Fig. 3, 21; [0043]) and a second base body (Fig. 3, 23; [0043]), comprising:
A first adhesive layer (Fig. 1, 4; [0043], [0046]) that contains at least 50% by mass ([0046], 70 to 99%) of an acid-modified polyolefin ([0046], “4…acid-modified polypropylene” wherein polypropylene is a type of polyolefin) with respect to a total mass (see [0046], wherein composition is described specific to that layer) of the first adhesive layer 4,
and adheres to the first metal base body (Fig. 3, metal tab 21; [0043] [0061], wherein 4 is a resin laminated on first base body 21 such that it adheres to the first base body 21);
a second adhesive layer (Fig. 1, 3; [0043], “polypropylene” where polypropylene is a type of polyolefin; [0046]) that contains at least 50% by mass of a polyolefin ([0046], “3 contains 70 mass%-99 mass% of acid-modified polypropylene”, where polypropylene is a type of polyolefin) with respect to a total a total mass (see [0046], wherein composition is described specific to that layer) of the second adhesive layer 3,
and adheres to the second base body (Fig. 3, 23, [0043], wherein 3 is a resin laminated to 23 such that it adheres to 23);
and a base material layer provided between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1, 2; [0043]),
wherein the resin [0022] constituting the base material 2 layer comprises at least one non-acid-modified polyolefin ([0022] and [0031], wherein ethylene-propylene rubber and ethylene-propylene-butene rubber are well-known polyolefin-based elastomers an constitute non-acid-modified polyolefins),
wherein a thickness of the first adhesive layer is at least 15 μm and at most 40 μm [0057], when the total thickness of the sealing film is ~ 100 μm (50 to 150 μm; [0057]), which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of at least 25 and at most 70 when the total thickness of the sealing film is defined as 100,
a thickness of the base material layer is at least 20 μm and at most 70 μm when the total thickness of the sealing film is ~ 100 (50 to 150 μm; [0057]) which overlaps and thus obviates the claimed range of at least 25 and at most 70 when the total thickness of the sealing film is defined as 100,
and a thickness of the second adhesive layer is at least 15 μm and at most 40 μm [0057], when the total thickness of the sealing film is ~ 100 μm (50 to 150 μm; [0057]), which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of at least 5 and at most 50 when the total thickness of the sealing film is defined as 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 2,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a melting point of a resin constituting the base material layer is higher ([0014-0015], 25-35 degrees higher) than a melting point of a resin constituting the first adhesive layer or the second adhesive layer [0014-0015].
Regarding claim 3,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the polyolefin constituting the second adhesive layer is an acid-modified polyolefin [0043].
Regarding claim 4,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a melting point of a resin constituting the base material layer is at least 155 C and at most 185 C [0014-0015], which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of 150 C to 170 C, and a melting point of a resin constituting the second adhesive layer is at least 130 C and at most 140 C, which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of 110 C and at most 150 C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 5,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a melting point of a resin constituting the first adhesive layer is at least 130 C and at most 140 C, which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of at least 110 C and at most 150 C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 6,
Nakajima teaches an electrode lead member (Fig. 3, 21) comprising: the sealing film (Fig. 1, 1) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); comprising a first sealing film (Fig. 3, upper 1) and a second sealing film (Fig. 3, lower 1) and the first metal base body 21 ([0029], “metal”), which is an electrode lead extending in one direction (Fig. 2, 21, wherein 21 extends in one direction), wherein the first sealing film and the second sealing film are disposed such that their first adhesive layers 4 face each other (Fig. 3, wherein upper and lower 1, and thus upper and lower 4, face each other) and sandwich (see Fig. 3 and [0062], “sandwiched”) the electrode lead 21, wherein the first adhesive layer 4 of the first sealing film (upper 1, wherein 4 is the innermost layer; [0043]) is in contact with a first surface of the electrode lead (Fig. 3, upper surface of 21 in contact with innermost bottom layer 4 of upper 1 [0043]), and wherein the first adhesive layer 4 of the second sealing film (lower 1, wherein 4 is the innermost layer; [0043]) is in contact with a second surface (Fig. 3, lower surface of 21; [0043]) of the electrode lead 21.
Regarding claim 7,
PNG
media_image1.png
930
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakajima teaches a battery (Fig. 3, 20; [0062]) comprising: the electrode lead member according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), a battery body to which the electrode lead member is connected (Fig. 2/3, body of 20), and the second base body (Fig. 2, 23; [0060], which is a housing container that houses the battery body (Fig. 3, wherein 23 houses battery body of 20), wherein the electrode lead (Fig. 2, 21; [0062]) is drawn out (Fig. 2, 21b; [0062], “tip 22b…let out of the exterior material 23”) of the housing container 23 from the battery body 20 inside the housing container 23, and wherein the second adhesive layers (Fig. 1, 3, see also annotated Fig. 3, upper 3; see [0062], wherein 3 is the outermost layer of 1), of the first sealing film (upper 1) and the second sealing film (lower 1) are in contact with (see annotated Fig. 3, shared surfaces upper 3 and upper 23 and lower 3 and lower 23) and heat-sealed to (see Fig. 2, seal portions 23d and [0062], wherein the housing container is thermally welded along 23 with leads sandwiched by upper and lower 1, wherein thermally welding is a type of heat-sealing, such that upper and lower 3 of 1 is heat-sealed to 23).
Regarding claim 8,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a peel strength [0082] between the sealing film (1; [0082]) and the first metal base body (21; [0082]) after immersion in an electrolyte mixture (see [0082], wherein “ an aqueous solution containing a chitosan resin, chromium fluoride and phosphoric acid” can function as an electrolyte) is at least 10 N/10 mm (Fig. 4; [0033], [0082], “50 N/15 mm” = 3.33 N/mm which is greater than 1 N/mm) wherein the peel strength [0082] between the first adhesive layer 1 and the first metal base body 21 is evaluated using a first 180 degree peel test [0082] in which the sealing film [0082] is peeled off [0082] from the first metal base body [0082] at a peeling speed of 10 mm/min [0082], the electrolyte mixture including water ([0081], “aqueous solution”).
Nakajima fails to specify the first 180 degree peel test at a peeling speed of 50 mm/min and applied after the sealing film and the adhered first metal base body are immersed in the electrolyte mixture at 85°C for 7 days, the electrolyte mixture including an electrolyte containing 1.0 mol/liter of LiPF6 mixed with 0.2% by mass (2000 ppm) of pure water. However, peel strength is known to increase with speed (see https://force-channel.com/en/post_2696/#:~:text=From%20the%20measurement%20results%2C%20it,at%20a%20lower%20test%20speed., see [Measurement Results at 180-Degree Peel Angle] section), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the sealing film of Nakajima necessarily has the claimed peel strength at a peeling speed of 50 mm/min, (see https://force-channel.com/en/post_2696/#:~:text=From%20the%20measurement%20results%2C%20it,at%20a%20lower%20test%20speed., see [Measurement Results at 180-Degree Peel Angle] section).
Regarding the limitation “immersed in the electrolyte mixture at 85°C for 7 days, the electrolyte mixture including an electrolyte containing 1.0 mol/liter of LiPF6 mixed with 0.2% by mass (2000 ppm) of pure water”, this describes chemical aging process for a peel strength test (Hydrofluoric acid produced) and this limitation contributes little patentable weight to the product itself. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 9,
Nakajima teaches the sealing film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a peel strength between the first metal base body and the second base body is at least 10 N/10 mm, wherein the peel strength between the first metal base body and the second base body is evaluated using a second 180 degree peel test in which the second base body is peeled off from the first metal base body at the peeling speed of 50 mm/min. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakajima fails to disclose a base material layer comprising at least one non-acid-modified polyolefin and instead teaches away from this feature. However, this is not persuasive. Nakajima discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer is selected from ethylene-propylene rubber and ethylene-propylene-butene rubber, which are well-known polyolefin-based elastomers an constitute non-acid-modified polyolefins. Accordingly, Nakajima teaches a base material layer comprising at least one non-acid-modified polyolefin.
Furthermore, Nakajima’s disclosure of acid-modified polypropylene in combination with the elastomer does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of non-acid-modified polyolefins, but rather demonstrates their combined use within the same composition.
Applicant argues that Nakajima fails to disclose specific peel strength values. However, this is not persuasive. Nakajima teaches wherein a peel strength [0082] between the sealing film (1; [0082]) and the first metal base body (21; [0082]) after immersion in an electrolyte mixture (see [0082], wherein “an aqueous solution containing a chitosan resin, chromium fluoride and phosphoric acid” can function as an electrolyte) is at least 10 N/10 mm (Fig. 4; [0033], [0082], “50 N/15 mm” = 3.33 N/mm which is greater than 1 N/mm). While Nakajima fails to teach the peel strength values after acid aging, as suggested by claim 8, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). In the case that these peel strength values differentiate over the prior art, the examiner suggests that the structure commensurate with such a peel strength be amended into the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : “Improvement of the Stability of LiPF6 Electrolytes toward Water by the Addition of LiCl” Kawamura, 2003, relevant to claim 8.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights