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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112 are persuasive and those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a polymer matrix) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner maintains that the independent claim fails to define components (A), (B) and (C) in a manner which distinguishes from the prior art as the materials as component B and C may be the same materials. The Examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the desirability for optimization of the prior art composition to arrive at a composition which obviates the claimed composition, as no criticality can be given to the claimed composition as currently recited.
The Examiner notes MPEP 716.02(d) - Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope with Claimed Invention: Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In the instant case, the claims cannot be taken to be commensurate in scope with the Examples for at least the reason that the claims fail to specify the polymer resins and only uses the generic term “polyolefin” and nowhere in the instant Examples shown or evaluated in the specification in a manner which would support a composition such complex fluorinated polyolefins (which is embraced by the claimed formula) to have properties which would be desirable and/or unexpected in a manner which could give the claimed range a secondary consideration to overcome the asserted obviousness.
Therefore, the rejection based on the prior art of record is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (KR 20150105200 A, cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is attached)
In regard to claim 1, Nakajima et al. teach a sealing film which seals between a metal first base (electrode lead 21, 22) and a second base (packaging 23 – paragraph [070]), the sealing film comprising:
a first adhesive layer (outer layer side resin layer 3) layer that mainly contains an acid-modified polyolefin and adheres to the first base (but may also contain thermoplastic elastomer – paragraph [039]);
a second adhesive layer (inner side resin layer 4) that mainly contains a polyolefin and adheres to the second base; and
a base material layer (base resin layer 2) provided between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (figure 1-3, paragraph [057] of attached machine translation, note paragraph numbers have been added by the Examiner and may not match the original document exactly),
wherein the base material layer contains the following components (A), (B), and (C), (see Examples 1-10, paragraphs [094-0120] – base resin layer 2 may contain two or three different components) such as:
component A: 30 mass% homo-polypropylene and component B and/or C: 70 mass% of an anhydride modified polypropylene (i.e. PP, an acid modified polyolefin – both inner and outer layer may include acid modified PP, the claim does not specify the components B and C must be different), the base resin may also include an additional component such as 1-2 mass% of ethylene propylene rubber (i.e. EPR) (see Resin compositions A-H in paragraphs [0076-0094]).
Note that as the inner and outer layers of the prior art may include multiple polymers, such that which components are considered A, B or C may vary (i.e. A, B and C may be reversed above). The ranges and materials disclosed by the prior art overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In the alternative, as the prior art teach the resin compositions to be result effective variables, optimizing the composition of the prior art layers would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 2, a melting point of the component (A) is higher than a melting point of the resin constituting the first adhesive layer or the second adhesive layer (paragraph [037])
In regard to claim 3, the polyolefin constituting the second adhesive layer (inner resin layer 4) includes an acid-modified polyolefin (paragraph [036]).
In regard to claim 4, the component (A) includes a polypropylene resin having a melting point of 155°C (paragraph [033]), and the resin constituting the second (inner) adhesive layer is a polypropylene or acid- modified polypropylene having a melting point below 155°C (paragraph [024]).
In regard to claim 5, the resin constituting the first (outer) adhesive layer is an acid-modified polypropylene having a melting point of 130°C to 140°C (paragraph [016]).
In regard to claims 6 and 7, Nakajima et al. teach a battery 20 comprising an electrode lead member comprising: the sealing film above; and the first base that is an electrode lead 21, 22 extending in one direction and a battery main body to which the electrode lead is connected; and the second base that is a storage container (packaging 23) storing the battery main body (paragraph [070], figure 2 and 3).
In regard to new claim 10, the prior art ranges are close enough to the ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05) absent evidence of criticality.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schubert (US Pub 2001/0014419 newly cited).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Nakajima et al. teach the sealing film according to claim 1, where PP resins are used but does not disclose an impact copolymer. However, Schubert teaches a similar polymer for seals in electrochemical cells and the desirability to include a polypropylene impact copolymer (ICP) having a phase-separated structure comprising a first phase comprising a propylene homopolymer and a second phase dispersed in the first phase, wherein the second phase comprises an ethylene-propylene rubber because such prevents cracking and leakage of the polymer seals (paragraphs [0017-0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a PP impact phase separated impact polymer as the component A in the sealing film of Nakajima et al. as such prevents cracking and leakage as taught by Schubert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 2003/0054241 newly cited, teaches similar acid modified PP film layers on a base layer for electrode lead sealing.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights