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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-16. Claim 1 was amended and claim 16 was added in the response filed 11/3/2025.
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) 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jifu (CN 102358068, see machine translation) in view of Azuma (WO 2019/078241, see machine translation) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263).
Regarding claim 1, Jifu discloses barrier layer soft package film for a polymer lithium battery (title, abstract). The package film includes an aluminum foil (metal shell) coated with an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is a two-component polyurethane resin adhesive (page 2 of translation). The adhesive is applied directed to the surface of the aluminum foil (metal shell) without an [additional] adhesive material residing therebetween (page 2).
The first component (A) comprises water as the dispersion medium, and polyurethane prepolymer, and the second component (B) is polyisocyanate (page 3).
Therefore, as the adhesive layer is applied as a two-component composition having water, Jifu teaches applying a waterborne two-component polyurethane composition to the metal shell of the battery device, and wherein the packaging layer is directly attached to the surface of the metal shell without a layer of an adhesive material residing therebetween.
While Jifu discloses a polyurethane prepolymer, Jifu does not explicitly disclose wherein polyurethane prepolymer comprises: a hydroxyl-functional polymer, wherein the hydroxyl-functional polymer comprises, by weight based on the weight of the hydroxyl-functional polymer, from 20% to 50% of structural units of a hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate, from 0.1% to 10% of structural units of an acid monomer, a salt thereof, or mixtures thereof, and structure units of a monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer.
Azuma discloses a polyisocyanate composition including an isocyanate (e.g., 1,6-hexamethyelne diisocynate) [a polyisocyanate] (pages 3 and 5), an acrylic polyol [hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate] (page 3), and other monomers (page 15). The acrylic polyol is a compound having two or more active hydrogens, and can include acrylic acids easters such as 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, or methacrylic acids such as 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate [hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate] (page 15). Other monomers that are copolymerizable therewith include: carboxylic acids such as acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, and more [acid monomer or salts thereof], or other monomers such as styrene or vinyl acetate [monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer] (page 15). The isocyanurate reaction temperature is preferably in the range of 30-70C, and within this range, better chromaticity can be obtained and improved productivity can be obtained (page 7). Azuma further teaches a heat treatment in the range of 60-200C, and teaches by using a higher temperature, the time can be made shorter (page 9); and thereby teaches drying. The polyisocyanate of this composition provides a coating composition having good solvent reducibility, and has excellent chemical resistance (pages 2-3). Azuma further teaches that a surfactant can be added (page 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyisocyanate composition including the isocyanate, acrylic polyol and other monomers with drying as taught by Azuma as the polyurethane prepolymer of Jifu for the purpose of having a composition that provides a coating composition having good solvent reducibility and excellent chemical resistance.
With regards to the limitations that the hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate is 20-50%, and acid monomer is in amount of 01-10%; Azuma teaches the isocyanate is in a range of 55-95% by mass, and that when the isocyanate is within the range, the viscosity and yield are within a preferred amount. That is, Azuma teaches that the amount of isocyanate in the polyisocyanate composition is a result effective variable (and as such, the amounts of hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate and acid monomer are also a result effective variable because these compounds are in the same composition and are impacted by the relative amount of isocyanate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the amount of isocyanate (including in the range of 55-95% by mass, leaving 5-45% of the hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate, acid monomer [carboxylic acid], and styrene; including the range of 20-45% hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate, and 0.1-10% acid monomer [carboxylic acid]) in the polyisocyanate composition of Jifu modified by Azuma to obtain the desired balance between viscosity and yield amount.
Modified Jifu does not explicitly disclose wherein: the packaging layer has a thickness of from 30 µm to 120 µm.
Douke discloses a battery packaging material including a base material layer 1, a metal layer 3, and a sealant layer 4 (abstract). The base material layer is the outermost layer, and has an insulation quality, and can include polyurethane ([0081]). The thickness of the base material layer 1 is between 7 to 75 μm ([0090]).
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 polyurethane layer thickness of 30-75 microns of the base material layer (that can be polyurethane) as taught by Douke with the polyurethane layer of modified Jifu for the purpose of increasing protection or adhesion of the layer.
With regards to the limitation of “wherein the packaging layer is an outer layer”, Jifu discloses that the aluminum foil (metal shell) is coated on both sides with the adhesive layer (page 2 of translation). Therefore, at least one side that is coated with the adhesive [polyurethane] layer is an outer layer. Further, Douke teaches that the base material layer that can be made with polyurethane can be the outermost layer ([0081]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Azuma teaches a isocyanurate reaction temperature is preferably in the range of 30-70C, and within this range, better chromaticity can be obtained and improved productivity can be obtained (page 7). Azuma further teaches a heat treatment in the range of 60-200C, and teaches by using a higher temperature, the time can be made shorter (page 9). Therefore, Azuma recognizes the temperature as a result effective variable, with higher temperatures reducing the time necessary. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the drying time (including in the range of 50-80C) of modified Jifu for the purpose of obtaining a balance between time and finished product.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Azuma teaches the hydroxyl-functional polymer is an emulsion polymer in water (page 15).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jifu teaches the polymer has a molecular weight of 5000-50000 (page 3). Further, Azuma teaches an average molecular weight of 700 or less (page 3) with other materials having an number average molecular weight of 3000 or less (page 8). Therefore, both Jifu and Azuma teach and suggest having a polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 g/mol or less.
Regarding claim 8, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Azuma further teaches the hydroxyl-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from the group consisting of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (page 15).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jifu further teaches that the polyisocyanate is selected from at least aliphatic diisocyanate and dimers (see pages 3-4, which have a list of polyisocyanates include diisocyanates).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Azuma further teaches that the molar ratio of isocyanate groups to hydroxyl groups (NCO/OH) is 0.2 or more and 5.0 or less, and preferably 0.5 to 2.0 [that is, the range of 0.2:1 to 5.0:1; and the preferred range of 0.5:1 to 2.0] (page 16). Therefore, Azuma teaches an overlapping range, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio within the range (including in the amounts of 3:1 to 0.8:1) to obtain the benefit of tougher coating and smoothness.
Further, Azuma teaches that when at least above the lower limit, a tougher coating tends to be obtained, whereas less than the above limit, a smoothness of the coating film tends to be further improved (page 16). That is, Azuma recognizes the ratio as a result effective variable. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the ratio of isocyanate groups to hydroxyl groups (including in the range of 3:1 to 0.8:1) in the material of modified Jifu to obtain the desired balance between tougher coating and smoothness of coating.
Regarding claim 12, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jifu teaches the synthesized material has high electrical insulation (page 4) and Douke teaches that the base material layer 1 [made of polyurethane] has an insulation quality ([0081]). Therefore, the prior art teaches the material has high electrical insulation. Further, 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 electrical volume resistance of the material to 1012 Ω-cm or higher of the polyurethane of modified Jifu to obtain a highly insulative material as suggested by Jifu and/or Douke.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jifu teaches the aluminum foil as the metal shell (abstract, page 2).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jifu teaches a battery having the battery package obtained from the method of claim 1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Douke teaches that the base material layer that can be polyurethane has a thickness of 7 to 75 µm ([0090]), and therefore discloses an overlapping range with the claimed “at least 60 microns”. Further, 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 thickness of 60-75 microns of the base material layer as taught by Douke to obtain the benefits of increasing protection or adhesion of the layer. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the layer (including the range of 60-75 microns) of the polyurethane layer to obtain the desired balance between protection, adhesion, and weight of the packaging layer on the battery.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jifu (CN 102358068, see machine translation) in view of Azuma (WO 2019/078241, see machine translation) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Varineau et al. (US 2010/0267844).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Jifu does not explicitly disclose (claim 4) wherein the aqueous dispersion (A) further comprises from 2% to 20% of an alcohol alkoxylate, by weight based on the weight of the emulsion polymer, (claim 5) wherein the alcohol alkoxylate having a molecular weight of 1,000 g/mol or less has a formula (I),
R1-O-(CHR3-CHR4-O)x-(CH2CH2-O)y-(CHR5-CHR6-O)z-R2,
Where R1 is a C6-C18 branched aliphatic group; R2 is hydrogen, a C1-C4 linear or branched aliphatic group, or benzyl; R3 and R4 together contain from 1 to 6 carbon atoms; R5 and R6 are each independently hydrogen or a C1-C6 aliphatic group, provided that R5 and R6 together contain from 1 to 6 carbon atoms; x is an average value ranging from 0 to 10; y is an average value ranging from 5 to 15; and z is an average value ranging from 0 to 5; provided that x+z>0; wherein the alcohol alkoxylate comprises from 25% to 75% of ethylene oxide units, by weight based on the weight of the alcohol alkoxylate,
Or (claim 6) wherein, in formula (I), R1 is 2-ethyl hexyl or
PNG
media_image1.png
96
78
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where Ra and Rb are each independently a C1-C17 aliphatic group, and Ra and Rb together contain from 7 to 17 carbon atoms.
Varineau discloses a secondary alcohol alkoxylate of the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are each independently hydrogen or a linear or branched alkyl R2 group containing from 1 to about 18 carbon atoms, provided that R1 and R2 together contain from about 8 to about 18 carbon atoms, and further provided that less than about 10 mole percent of R1 or R2 is hydrogen; R3 is hydrogen or an alkyl radical containing from 1 to about 6 carbon atoms; R4 and R5 are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl radical containing from 2 to about 6 carbon atoms, provided that R4 and R5 together contain from 2 to about 6 carbon atoms; m is an average value ranging from 0 to about 10, and n is an average value ranging from about 3 to about 40, provided that the group containing m and the group containing n may be exchanged with one another as to position; and z is an average value ranging from about 0.5 to about 5 ([0018]). The secondary alcohol alkoxylate has a molecular weight from about 300 to about 1400 (claim 13). Further, the secondary alcohol alkoxylate has an overlapping range of the subscripts m, n, and z (corresponding to the claimed x, y, and z) and Rx values, and therefore also has an overlapping range of the alcohol alkoxylate comprising from 25% to 75% ethylene oxide units by weight based on the weight of the alcohol alkoxylate.
The secondary alcohol can be in amount from about 0.05 to 90 weight percent, or about 0.5 to 20 weight percent ([0030]); and those skilled in the art will be able to determine usage amounts via a combination of general knowledge of the applicable field as well as routine experimentation where needed ([0030]).
Varineau teaches the secondary alcohol alkoxylate can be used in polyurethane ([0031]). Varineau teaches that the alcohol alkoxylate can be used to dilute higher viscosity polymers, including polyurethanes ([0032]), and can be used as a surfactant, foam reduction or, emulsification agent ([0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secondary alcohol alkoxylate of formula 1 of Varineau with the polymer of modified Jifu for the purpose of diluting the viscosity, providing a surfactant or foam reduction, or adding as an emulsification agent.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jifu (CN 102358068, see machine translation) in view of Azuma (WO 2019/078241, see machine translation) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ijuin (US 2017/0141362).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Jifu does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydroxy-functional polymer has a glass transition temperature of from 10 to 80C.
Ijuin discloses a power storage device packaging material including a base material layer 11 (abstract, Fig 1). A base material protective layer 18 is formed on the outer side surface of the base material layer 11, and contains a urethane resin ([0131], Fig 4). The glass transition temperature of the urethane resin is preferably 0C or more, and preferably 60C or less ([0148]). Within the range, the urethane resin has more scratch resistance due to improved self-repairability and is easily prevented from becoming fragile ([0148]).
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 polyurethane of Jifu to have a glass transition temperature within a range of 10-60C as taught by Ijuin for the purpose of having a polymer that is more scratch resistance due to improved self-repairability and is easily prevented from becoming fragile.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jifu (CN 102358068, see machine translation) in view of Azuma (WO 2019/078241, see machine translation) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Natesh et al. (US 5,739,194).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jifu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Azuma teaches using pigments (page 16), modified Jifu does not explicitly disclose wherein the packaging layer has a distinctness of image of 74 or higher.
Natesh discloses an aqueous dispersion of urethane polymers that provide good adhesion following humidity exposure (abstract). The dispersion is made of acrylic polymers and polyisocyanates (C2/L15-55). Natesh teaches the DOI can be 80 (see Table 1, B-1+B-2).
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 distinctness of image of 80 for a polyurethane as taught by Natesh for the polyurethane of modified Jifu for the purpose of having an coating that has good adhesion even in humidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended limitation of “wherein the packaging layer is an outer layer”.
This is not considered persuasive. Jifu discloses that the aluminum foil (metal shell) is coated on both sides with the adhesive layer (page 2 of translation). Therefore, at least one side that is coated with the adhesive [polyurethane] layer is an outer layer. Further, Douke, a newly cited reference to address new claim 16, teaches that the base material layer that can be made with polyurethane can be the outermost layer ([0081]).
Applicant argues that D2 [Azuma] fails to disclose the specific aqueous dispersion according to claim 1, and there would be no motivation for a skilled worker to select only the components of item (A) and combined those in the amounts recited in item (A) absent use of the present invention as a guide. Applicant argues the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the references.
This is not considered persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regards to the combination, Jifu already discloses a first component including water and a polyurethane prepolymer, and a second component of polyisocyanate (page 3). Jifu is merely silent on the specific polyurethane prepolymer of hydroxyl-functional polymer as claimed.
Azuma discloses a polyisocyanate composition including an isocyanate (e.g., 1,6-hexamethyelne diisocynate) [a polyisocyanate] (pages 3 and 5), an acrylic polyol [hydroxy-functional alkyl (meth)acrylate] (page 3), and other monomers (page 15). The polyisocyanate of this composition provides a coating composition having good solvent reducibility, and has excellent chemical resistance (pages 2-3).
Therefore, Azuma provide a motivation for the combination of the polyisocyanate including the acrylic polyol [hydroxyl-functional polymer], and therefore the Examiner has not used impermissible hindsight because the motivation is provided from the prior art.
Applicant argues that “the present inventors found a surprising benefit of using the alcohol alkoxylate in regard to improved electrical insulation an [sic] impact resistance”. Applicant cites paragraph [0043] for support.
This is not considered persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing unexpected results. However, Applicant has merely alleged such benefit and not provided evidence or explained such benefit.
It is firstly noted that Applicant has the burden of explaining the unexpected results. "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 716.02(b). Applicant has merely pointed to a paragraph, and stated that the benefit is there. Further, the paragraph [0043] merely states that the combination of elements “surprisingly” results in benefits, does not provide any evidence or explanation of benefits, is broadly written with a variety of limitations or provisos, and the paragraph appears directed to the polyurethane composition in combination with an alcohol alkoxylate which is not present in claim 1. Therefore, any alleged benefit is clearly not commensurate in scope with the claim, because the claim does not require any alcohol alkoxylate.
Even still, MPEP 716.02(d) states “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. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Because Applicant has not explained the unexpected results, and the criticality of claimed range has not been demonstrated.
Further, polyurethane is known to be electrically insulative (Jifu at page 4, Douke at [0081]). Therefore, it is further unclear whether the benefit is actually unexpected.
Therefore, at least because the Applicant has not explained the proffered data, and therefore has not demonstrated: the criticality of the ranges, tests against the closest prior art, and the allegations of unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims, the allegations of unexpected results is not considered persuasive.
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 JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725