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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 , drawn to an exterior material for electrical storage devices, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the group still lacks unity of intention, as the common technical feature of, at most, the exterior material of claim 1, is still not a special technical feature in view of the prior art: Sasaki (JP2016162622A) in view of Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1), as established below.
Furthermore, particularly with respect to the restrictions between groups I – II and III, the inventions are also likely to raise serious examination issues as issues relevant to one invention are not necessarily relevant to the other invention (e.g. broadest reasonable interpretation of product claims vs method claims is different).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9 – 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/22/20026.
In light of the search uncovering prior art directed to nonelected Group II, drawn to an electrical storage device element, the examiner partially withdraws the restriction mailed 11/26/2025 and claim 9 is considered in the current Office action as rejoined. Claim 10 remains withdrawn for the reasons as previously established in the restriction mailed 11/26/2025 and further above.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d)
with a filing date of 09/30/2020. The certified copy of JP2020-166350 has been filed in the present
application, received on 03/17/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The units for intrinsic viscosity {i.e. dl/g} are missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A, cited in 03/17/2023 IDS, machine translation provided) in view of Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki discloses an exterior material for an electrical storage device comprising a laminate (Fig. 1; [0022]) including at least a base material layer (Fig. 1, 11; [0022]), a barrier layer, that is Sakai teaches including a metal foil layer (Fig. 1, 14; [0022]), which corresponds to claimed barrier layer since the applicant exemplifies the barrier layer to be a metal foil (Instant Specification: [0090]), and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order (sealant layer; Fig. 1, 17; [0022];[0110]), the base material layer including a resin film (polyester resin film, [0023];[0029 – 0030]).
Sasaki further discloses the resin film having a shrinking ratio of 0 or more and less than 5 % when immersed in hot water at 95°C for 30 minutes ([0023 – 0024];[0027]), which significantly overlaps the claimed range of 1.0% or more and less than 5%, and selection of the overlapping portion of the ranges would have been prima facie obvious with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would successfully achieve the deep draw formability improvement and adhesion desired by Sasaki ([0011 – 0012]) [See MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Additionally, selection of a shrinkage ratio with the overlapping portion would have been obvious to optimize the deep draw formability of the resin film while also ensuring suppression of peeling between the base material layer 11 and the metal foil layer 14 when exposed to heat and/or electrolyte ([0011 – 0012];[0027]), with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the resin film having a stress value of 100 MPa or more in both a machine direction and a transverse direction when stretched by 10% in the claimed tensile test.
Taniguchi teaches a packaging material for a lithium-ion battery having a substrate layer {i.e. similar to Sasaki’s base material layer} made of a plastic film ([0023 – 0025]). Taniguchi further teaches that the plastic film, when stretched by about 10% during a tensile test a stress value in an MD direction of the sample and a stress value in a TD direction of the sample are both at not larger than about 110 MPa, and at least one of the stress value in the MD direction of the sample and the stress value in the TD direction of the sample is not less than about 70 MPa ([0025]). The tensile test taught by Taniguchi corresponds to the claimed tensile test, that is Taniguchi teaches testing conditions of an environment of 23° C. and 40% R.H., a sample width of 6 mm, a gauge length of 35 mm and a tension speed of 300 mm/second to measure a stress value at the time when the sample is stretched by 10% (displacement: 3.5 mm) relative to a length of the sample prior to the test ([0026]). The stress values taught by Taniguchi allow for excellent formability irrespective of the humidity of the environment ([0029]).
Since the resin film of Sasaki is also applied in the exterior material of a battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form Sasaki’s resin film such that, when stretched by 10% though a tensile test as claimed, the resin films provides a stress value within the range taught Taniguchi, and thus overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with improved formability.
Selection of a stress value within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the formability of the resin film without suffering the influence of the storing and forming environments (Taniguchi: [0119 – 0120]), with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sasaki further discloses wherein a thickness of the resin film is most preferably 10 – 30 µm ([0032]), which is within the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 40 µm or less.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sasaki further discloses an electrical storage device (secondary battery 40, Fig. 3; [0129 – 0131]) comprising at least a positive electrode ([0129];[0136]), a negative electrode ([0129];[0136]) and an electrolyte ([0132]) housed in a packaging formed of the exterior material for electrical devices according to claim 1 (Refer to [0129] and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A) and Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiomi (JP2017177412A – cited in 03/17/2023 IDS, Machine translation provided) and Shiomi (JP2015131888A – cited in 03/17/2023 IDS , Machine translation provided), hereinafter Shiomi II.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. The resin film of Sasaki is a biaxially oriented polyester resin film ([0029 – 0030]). The film is taught to preferably be stretched by tubular biaxial stretching and simultaneous biaxial stretching to obtain better deep drawability ([0031]).
Modified Sasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin film has a work-hardening index of 1.6 or more and 3.0 or less in both a longitudinal direction and a width direction, and a difference in work-hardening index between the longitudinal direction and width direction is 0.5 or less.
Shiomi also teaches a polyester film for a battery exterior packaging and further teaches the film
having an average work-hardening index in the longitudinal direction and the width direction of 2.5 to 3.0 in order to obtain excel draw formability ([0001];[0007];[0010]). Shiomi further teaches that if a material with little work-hardening is drawn, stress will continue to concentrate in areas with little deformation resistance that do not harden, making the material more susceptible to fracture in relation to the amount of deformation ([0010]). Work-hardening indexes greater than 2.7 are taught by Shiomi to be preferable since it improves drawability of the film when used as a laminate material.
Since Sasaki also teaches a polyester resin film that is used in a laminated exterior material for a battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the values of the work-hardening index in the longitudinal and width direction of Sasaki’s resin film such that the average of the values is within the range taught by Shiomi, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the deep drawability desired by Sasaki.
By having an average work-hardening index in the longitudinal direction and the width direction being 2.5 to 3.0, modified Sasaki would necessarily be capable of having a work-hardening index in both a longitudinal direction and a width direction within/encompassing the claimed range of 1.6 – 3.0 and providing a difference in work-hardening index between the longitudinal direction and width direction within/encompassing the claimed range of 0.5 or less.
Shiomi II, also directed toward a polyester film for battery exterior packaging, teaches a work-hardening index range of 1.8 – 2.0, and that a work hardening index below 1.8 results in poor drawability ([0013]). Shiomi II further teaches that increases in the work-hardening index increases the elastic deformation due to bending during drawing, and thus further increases warpage after forming ([0001]).
Therefore, selection of a work-hardening index in a longitudinal and width direction within the claimed range, and further that provide a difference within the claimed range, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the degree of warpage of the resin film while ensuring that the film has sufficient drawability, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A) and Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakushido (JP2007076026A, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. The resin film of Sasaki is a biaxially oriented polyester resin film ([0029 – 0030]). Sasaki further teaches example polyester resins including polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polybutylene naphthalate, and copolymer polyesters ([0030]).
Modified Sasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin film has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.66 or more and 0.95 or less.
Yakushido teaches a polyester laminate film having excellent moldability characteristics such as deep drawability, followability to the surface shape of the transfer target, and peelability from the transfer target ([0001];[0006 – 0007]). The polyester films of Yakushido are taught to include polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene terephthalate (PPT), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyhexamethylene terephthalate (PHT), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (PCT), and polyhydroxybenzoate (PHB) as well as dicarboxylic acid components and glycol components ([0007 – 0009];[0013]). Yakushido further teaches having the intrinsic viscosity of the polyester layers be in the range of 0.6 – 1.3 dl/g and most preferably 0.7 – 1.1 dl/g ([0018]). Yakushido further teaches that moldability deteriorates at lower intrinsic viscosity {i.e. less than 0.6 dl/g} and that film-forming properties tend to deteriorate/film thickness becomes uneven at higher intrinsic viscosity {i.e. exceeds 1.3 dl/g} ([0018]).
Since Sasaki teaches a polyester resin film that is used in a laminated exterior material and further teaches polyester resin compositions similar to Yakushido (Sasaki: [0030];[0036 – 0038]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the intrinsic viscosity of Sasaki’s polyester resin film to be within the most preferable range taught by Yakushido, and thus overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with improved moldability and film-forming properties.
Selection of an intrinsic viscosity within the overlapping portion of the taught range and claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the moldability while also ensuring sufficient film-forming properties, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. The resin film of Sasaki is a biaxially oriented polyester resin film ([0029 – 0030]). Sasaki further teaches example polyester resins including polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polybutylene naphthalate, and copolymer polyesters ([0030]).
Modified Sasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin film has a melting point of 235°C or higher.
Yakushido further teaches having the melting point of the polyester used in the polyester films be in the range of 240 – 270°C to obtain a polyester layer with both heat resistance and sufficient moldability ([0020]).
Since Sasaki teaches a polyester resin film that is used in a laminated exterior material and further teaches that the exterior material is exposed to heat/high temperatures (Sasaki: [0009 – 0010]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the melting point of Sasaki’s polyester resin film be within the range taught by Yakushido, and thus within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with both heat resistance and moldability.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A) and Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiomi (JP2018184508A, Machine translation provided), hereinafter Shiomi III.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. The resin film of Sasaki is a biaxially oriented polyester resin film ([0029 – 0030]).
Modified Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the resin film having a rigid-amorphous content of 28% or more and 60% or less (Claim 5) or a crystallinity degree of 15% or more and 40% or less (Claim 7).
Shiomi III teaches a polyester film that can be used as an exterior material for a lithium ion battery, and further teaches controlling the rigid-amorphous content and degree of crystallinity of the film in order to improve the toughness of the film ([0004 – 0006];[0017]). Shiomi III particularly teaches the resin film having a rigid-amorphous content of 33 – 60% and a degree of crystallinity of 25 – 35% ([0008 – 00010]). Shimoi III teaches having the proportion of rigid amorphous content be greater than the degree of crystallinity from the viewpoint of Charpy impact absorption energy, that is in order to maximize the Charpy impact absorption energy, it is necessary to increase the rigidity of the film while suppressing the formation of an ordered structure, that is, suppressing crystallization ([0009]). The taught rigid-amorphous content range and degree of crystallinity are taught by Shiomi III to optimize the magnitude Charpy impact absorption energy and thus improve the toughness of the resin film ([0007 – 0008];[0010]).
Since Sasaki also teaches a polyester resin film that is used in a laminated exterior material for a battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the rigid-amorphous content and the degree of crystallinity of Sasaki’s polyester resin film to be within the ranges taught by Shiomi III, and thus within the claimed ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with maximized Charpy impact absorption and thus improved toughness.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A) and Taniguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0017518 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Machida (US PG Pub. 2010/0209712 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Sasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. The resin film of Sasaki is a biaxially oriented polyester resin film ([0029 – 0030]).
Modified Sasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein a rupture elongation of the resin film in at least one of the longitudinal direction and the width direction is 100% or more.
Machida teaches a biaxially oriented polyarylene sulfide film that is applicable as a lithium ion battery material and further that has excellent moldability ([0002]). Machida further teaches having one of the elongations at break in the machine direction and in the transverse direction of the film of the film is not lower than 110% as elongations at break less than 110% can cause the film to become broken during processing/use ([0010];[0030 – 0031]). Machida further teaches, from the viewpoint of promoting processability, having both the average elongation at break of the film in the machine direction and that in the transverse direction be not less than 110% ([0032]).
Since Sasaki also teaches a biaxially oriented film for use as an exterior material for a battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form Sasaki’s resin film with an elongation at break in the longitudinal direction and width direction, as taught by Machida, and thus within the claimed scope and range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a film with improved processability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/18/2026