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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 25, 2026:
Claim 5 has been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13 are pending with claim 13 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 202/0144573 (Park et al.) in view of US 2022/0158270 or WO 2020/262832A1 (Lee et al.) (note: regarding Lee et al. – both references are applicable with different dates; the US version of the document is relied upon as an English translation of the WO document, as both correspond to the same PCT) as evidenced by US 2022/0181715 (Jiang et al.), and either evidenced by or alternately obvious over US 2020/0203773 (Fujita et al.).
As to claim 1, Park et al. teach a battery cell stack comprising:
a plurality of battery cells [20] (figs. 6-8); and
a resin layer [30] which is wholly or partially in contact with an outer surface of at least one of the plurality of battery cells (figs. 6-8),
wherein the resin layer includes a solvent-free adhesive (para 0055),
wherein the solvent-free adhesive includes a thermoplastic adhesive (olefin (encompasses polyolefin, polyethylene)) (para 0054, 0076). (Note: At this point, Jiang et al. is relied upon as an evidentiary reference to show that olefins/polyolefins, such as polyethylene, are a thermoplastic polymer. See para 0066.)
. Park et al. do not teach (a) the resin layer has a peel strength of 1,000 gf/in to 3,000 gf/in measured according to ASTM D3330, and a shear strength of 20 kgf/sq-in to 100 kgf/sq-in measured according to ASTM D1002, or (b) the resin layer has a softening point of 60.0°C to 140.0°C.
With respect to (a): In the same field of endeavor (regarding fixing and a resin as applied to the battery), Lee et al. teach that the resin layer should have a peel strength of 400 g/cm (1016 g/f/in) or more and a shear strength of 1.4 MPa (14.276 kgf/in2) or more (both overlapping the claimed range) (para 0063-0064). The motivation for having a peel strength of 400 g/cm (1016 g/f/in) or more and a shear strength of 1.4 MPa (14.276 kgf/in2) or more is to effectively fix the cell stack (para 0063-0064).Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a peel strength of 400 g/cm (1016 g/f/in) or more and a shear strength of 1.4 MPa (14.276 kgf/in2) or more in order to effectively fix the cell stack. “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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I). (Note : Although the specific test applied to measuring peel strength and shear strength is not set forth, a value for a given property should be the same, or at the very least similar, such that obviousness is still maintained (via at the very least an overlapping range).)
With respect to (b): Fujita et al. teaches adhesive materials, namely polypropylene (an olefin) has a softening point of 130°C -140°C (para 0049) (lies within claimed range). Thus a softening point of 130°C -140°C is (1) either expected or (2) obvious.
With respect to (1): a softening point of 130°C -140°C of olefins is shown by Fujita (para 0049).
With respect to (2): if it shown that a softening point of olefins can have a softening point outside of 130°C -140°C, any difference would be minor, such that obviousness exists (similarity expected due to similar chemical makeup).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 2, Park et al. teach the solvent-free adhesive includes one or more selected from the group consisting of an ethylene vinyl acetate resin, polyamide resin, fatty acid polyamide resin, polyester resin, polyurethane resin, polyolefin resin, styrene resin and rubber resin (ethylene vinyl acetate and olefin (encompasses polyolefin, as shown in para 0076)) (para 0054).
As to claim 3, Park et al. teach the solvent-free adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) (pressure applied, thus pressure sensitive) (para 0127).
As to claim 4, Park et al. renders obvious the claim limitation (the resin layer has a viscosity of 2,000 cps to 18,500 cps at 160 °C), as Park sets forth that viscosity controlling agents are used to effect variables such as shear force and dispersability (para 0068-0072).Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the resin layer having a viscosity of 2,000 cps to 18,500 cps at 160 °C, as adjusting viscosity (which is associated with a temperature) affects results and gives results such as desired shear force and dispersability.
As to claim 6, Park et al. teach the resin layer has a withstand voltage of generally 3-50 kV/mm, including appreciating 10 kV/mm or more and 30 kV/mm or less, measured according to ASTM D149 (para 0042) (thus at the very least having an overlapping range). “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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 7, Park et al. teach the battery cell stack further comprises a functional layer (insulating layer [40]) disposed between the plurality of battery cells, and the resin layer is wholly or partially in contact with the functional layer (fig. 8).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. in view of Lee et al. either evidenced by or in view of Fujita et al., as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 20221/0288362 (Churchill).
As to claim 8, Park teaches that the functional layer (insulating layer [40]) can be made of polyethylene (para 0076).
Park et al. do not teach that the polyethylene is in the form of fibers.
However Churchill teaches an insulating layer made of polymeric fibers, wherein the polymer can be polyethylene (para 0037).
The substitution of one shape of material (fibers, as in Churchill) for another (undisclosed in Park) within a polyethylene insulating layer would yield the predictable result of providing an insulating polyethylene layer, where both polyethylene layers made of fibrous materials and polyethylene layers that do not necessarily have to be made of fibers have the function known in the art - an insulating layer. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one shape of material (fibers) for another (undisclosed) within a polyethylene insulating layer, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an insulating polyethylene layer, where both polyethylene layers made of fibrous materials and polyethylene layers that do not necessarily have to be made of fibers have the same function known in the art - an insulating layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant (first) argues Park’s cured product is distinct from a thermoplastic resin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park encompasses thermoplastic polymers as claimed (polyolefin, such as polyethylene (para 0054, 0076) (evidenced by Jiang et al. to be thermoplastic polymers (para 0066). Nothing in the claimed invention precludes the presence of a cured product, only that a thermoplastic adhesive is present. Thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant (secondly) argues that softening point is a property of thermoplastic resins and not cross-linked cured products, and thus the application of Fujita (raw product) is not proper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park encompasses thermoplastic polymers as claimed (polyolefin, such as polyethylene (para 0054, 0076) (evidenced by Jiang et al. to be thermoplastic polymers (para 0066). Nothing in the claimed invention precludes the presence of a cured product, only that a thermoplastic adhesive is present. Thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Applicant has not provided any proof that the softening point of Fujita (regarding a polyolefin) is not applicable to Park’s teaching (including a polyolefin). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues (thirdly) that Park’s resin layer includes other components, such that the softening point (iif present) would not be maintained.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this instance, a secondary rejection regarding close/non-overlapping ranges has already been set forth, reiterated herein for clarity’s sake:
“With respect to (b): if it shown that a softening point of olefins can have a softening point outside of 130°C -140°C, any difference would be minor, such that obviousness exists (similarity expected due to similar chemical makeup).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).”
Applicant has not provided proof or reasoning as to how any differences in the softening temperature would not be obvious in light of the reasoning above. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues (fourthly) that the softening point range allows for reversible melting/solidification which allows for easy removal when recycled, enables rework when defects occur during manufacturing, an affects properties like impact resistance and manufacturing. Specifically, Applicant argues that unexpected results are achieved regarding peel strength, shear strength, reworkability, impact resistance, and insulation (citing examples 1-7 versus comparative examples 2-4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not met the burden to show unexpected results. MPEP 716.02(b) sets forth that Applicant has the duty to set forth why the results are unexpected and significant, which has not been done in full. Examiner submits that the presence of comparative example 1 appears to show that the softening point claimed does not provided unexpected results (as the softening point falls within the claimed range but does not provide superior results). Examiner submits that perhaps the peel strength and shear strength (rendered obvious by Lee for fixing reasons (in line with the results shown in table 2 at the very least regarding impact) affects the results. MPEP 716.02(c)(II) sets forth that expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness. Perhaps, viscosity (in table 1), unclaimed, also affects application state, workability, etc. (table 2). However, none of this is addressed by Applicant; thus Applicant fails to meet the burden required by MPEP 716.02(b) to meet unexpected results. Examiner also cites MPEP 716.02(d) (specifically comparing sufficient tests inside and outside the range) and MPEP 716.02(e) (comparison to the closest prior art) must be met, wherein it is unsure how the burden to these sections have been met. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Churchill) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim (Park in view of Lee as evidence by/in view of Fujita et al.). Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights