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 amendments received in the Remarks on September 25th, 2025:
Claims 1-4 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4 are amended.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “and wherein the peak top temperature of the thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin is a welding temperature at which an adhesive strength of a stacked body, formed by causing aluminum foils or aluminum foil and copper foil to adhere to each other with thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin interposed therebetween by heat welding, becomes maximum relative to a temperature during heat welding.”
Claim 4 has been amended to overcome the previous 112b rejection and now states “The power storage device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of power storage cells, each power storage cell having the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator are stacked one another, and wherein a second surface opposite to the first surface in the positive current collector of a first power storage cell of the plurality of power storage cells and a second surface opposite to the first surface in the negative current collector of a second power storage cell of the plurality of power storage cells.”
Status of Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of August 15th, 2025
The previous claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been overcome in view of the amendment received in the remarks.
The previous claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 have been maintained in view of the amendments received in the remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks on September 25th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues rejection regarding claim 3 is deficient, as Jeong only discloses “polyolefin based composite resins” without showing that such resins are thermoplastic and applicant argues in the rejection of claim 3, Jeong allegedly discloses a thermoplastic polyolefin resin having a linear coefficient within the claimed range, but the claim required a thermoplastic resin that possess both the claimed peak top temperature and the claimed linear coefficient, but the rejection is deficient to do so, and does not identify a single resin in the prior art that exhibits both properties, and fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Minamitani et al, Nishikawa et al and Jeong et al meet the claimed requirement and depict a resin with both a top temperature and linear coefficient of the claim.
Applicant argues the rejection of claim 4, that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of the peak top temperature of 135 °C or less.
Nishikawa teaches an embodiment regarding thermal fusion temperature suitable to use a polyolefin with a melting point of 170 °C or less, the “or less” portion of that teaching would include the temperature of 135°C or less. Applicant is arguing related to disclosed thermal fusion of 150°C to 220°C would be another embodiment.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamitani et al, US 20180323410 A1 (already on the record) and Nishikawa et al, US 9391309 B2 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Minamitani teaches a thin power storage device (Minamitani, 10; Figure 2) equipped with a positive electrode (Minamitani, 22; Figure 2), a negative electrode (Minamitani, 23; Figure 2) and a separator (Minamitani, 21; Figure 2) arranged between the positive and negative electrode [Minamitani, 0067], wherein the positive electrode includes a first metallic foil layer (Minamitani, 2; Figure 2), corresponding to the positive current collector, and a positive electrode active material layer laminated on one surface (separator side surface) of the first metallic foil layer, corresponding to the first surface of the positive current collector [Minamitani, 0068]. The negative electrode includes a second metallic foil layer (Minamitani, 12; Figure 2), corresponding to the negative current collector, and a negative electrode active material layer (Minamitani, 13; Figure 2), laminated on one surface (separator side surface) of the second metallic foil layer, corresponding to the first surface of the negative current collector [Minamitani, 0069]. Figure 2 of Minamitani depicts the negative electrode active material layer opposite to the positive electrode active material layer, therefore, the negative electrode active material face faces the positive electrode active material layer. The peripheral sealing layer (Minamitani, 31; Figure 2), is disposed between the positive and negative electrode and encloses the active material layers, as depicted in figure 2, furthermore, the peripheral sealing layer is split into two regions, the first thermoplastic resin layer (Minamitani, 4; Figure 2), laminated onto the first surface of the first metallic foil layer, corresponding to the first surface of the positive current collector, and the second thermoplastic resin layer (Minamitani, 14; Figure 2), laminated onto the first surface of the second metallic foil layer, corresponding to the first surface of the negative current collector [Minamitani, 0099], to create the sealing layer between the positive and negative electrode [Minamitani, 0071], in which the electrolyte (Minamitani, 5/15; Figure 2) is encapsulated between the separator and the active material layers [Minamitani, 0073]. The material for the first metallic foil layer is not particularly limited, but is preferably made of an aluminum foil, wherein the thickness is 7 μm to 150 μm [Minamitani, 0082]. The material for the second metallic foil layer is not particularly limited, but is preferably made of aluminum foil, copper foil, a stainless steel foil, a nickel foil, or a titanium foil, wherein the thickness if 7 μm to 50 μm [Minamitani, 0090]. The sealing layer is formed by thermoplastic resin unstretched films, that is preferably made of at least one type of resin selected from: polyethylene, polypropylene, olefin copolymer, their acid-modified product and ionomer [Minamitani, 0100]. The sealing layer containing the thermoplastic resin, is formed by overlapping the first resin layer on the first surface of the first metallic foil layer and the laminating the second resin layer on the second metallic foil layer and fusion welding them by heat [Minamitani, 0099]. However, Minamitani is silent to teach on the peak top temperature of the polyolefin-based resin being 135 °C or less or the top peak temperature of the thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin is a welding temperature at which an adhesive strength of the stacked body, becomes maximum relative to a temperature during heat welding.
Nishikawa teaches on a porous material comprising polyolefin, wherein, in the viewpoint of thermal fusion, it is suitable to use a polyolefin with a melting point, corresponding to the peak top temperature, of 170 °C or less [Nishikawa, column 7, line 64-66], wherein a base material with excellent thermal fusion and strength can be obtained [Nishikawa, column 8, line 12-14]
The limitation “corresponds to a welding temperature at which adhesive strength becomes maximum” is a product-by-process limitation, and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Nishikawa and Minamitani are considered analogous arts in the area of polyolefin resin materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Minamitani to include the melting point temperature as taught by Nishikawa because such modification would improve the heat sealing performance of the peripheral sealing layer, which can sufficiently prevent leakage of the electrolyte [Minamitani, 0049].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Alternatively, the thermoplastic resin that is preferably made of at least one type of resin selected from: polyethylene, polypropylene, olefin copolymer [Minamitani, 0100], as taught by Minamitani, would have a peak top temperature of 170 °C or less, as evidence provided by Nishikawa, who teaches a polyolefin with a melting point of 170 °C or less [Nishikawa, column 7, line 64-66], and obtain a base material with excellent thermal fusion and strength can be obtained [Nishikawa, column 8, line 12-14], wherein the sealing layer containing the thermoplastic resin, is formed by overlapping the first resin layer on the first surface of the first metallic foil layer and the laminating the second resin layer on the second metallic foil layer and fusion welding them by heat [Minamitani, 0099]. Furthermore, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.(MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would be obvious for the thermoplastic resin, as taught by modified Minamitani, would have a peak top temperature of 170 °C or less and wherein the peak top temperature of the thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin is a welding temperature at which and adhesive strength of a stacked body becomes a maximum relative to a temperature during heat welding.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Minamitani teaches the power storage device of claim 1, wherein the second metallic foil layer, corresponding to the other of the positive current collector and the negative current collector of the claim, is not limited, but is preferably an aluminum, copper, stainless steel, nickel, or titanium foil, with a thickness of 7 μm to 50 μm [Minamitani, 0090].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Minamitani teaches the power storage device of claim 1, wherein figure 5 of Minamitani depicts a storage device module (Minamitani, 50; Figure 5) including a plurality of power storage devices (Minamitani, 1; Figure 5), wherein the thin power storage device (Minamitani, 10; Figure 2) equipped with a positive electrode (Minamitani, 22; Figure 2), a negative electrode (Minamitani, 23; Figure 2) and a separator (Minamitani, 21; Figure 2) arranged between the positive and negative electrode [Minamitani, 0067], shown stacked on one another in figure 2. Furthermore, figure 5 and 6 depict a plurality of thin power storage devices (Minamitani, 1; Figure 6), stacked together, thus the power storage device (Minamitani, 50; Figure 6), with adjacent thin power storage devices, wherein the positive electrode side conductive layer (Minamitani, 51; Figure 6), corresponding to the second surface of the positive current collector, and the negative electrode side conductive layers (Minamitani, 52; Figure 6), corresponding to the second surface of the negative current collector, are in well-contact with each other [Minamitani, 0139].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamitani et al, US 20180323410 A1 (already on record) and Nishikawa et al, US 9391309 B2 (already on record) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jeong et al, US 20010006990 A1 (already on record).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Minamitani teaches the power storage device of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin having a coefficient of linear expansion of 25x10-5 /°C or less.
Jeong teaches on polyolefin based composite resins and their coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the Table 7 and Table 8 , show the coefficient of linear thermal expansion results of examples 1-8, which are polyolefin-based resin composite, and are shown to have a coefficient of linear thermal expansion of 4.0x10-5 (mm/mm °C) to 7.5x10-5 (mm/mm °C)[Jeong, 0056], which falls within the claimed range.
Jeong and modified Minamitani are considered analogous arts in the area of polyolefin resin materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Minamitani to include the coefficient of linear thermal expansion as taught by Jeong because such modification would improve the resins’ ability to be easily assembled with bodyworks and provide dimensional stability to molded products [Jeong, 0066].
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.)
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights