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
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 05/19/2026. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claim 10 remains withdrawn. Claims 1 – 9 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth above are withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment is presented below. In light of applicant’s amendment, the objection to claim 4 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the teachings of the prior art Taniguchi have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of prior art to render obvious the claimed stress value range. Specifically, the new grounds of rejection uses newly cited prior art Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 A1) to render obvious the claimed stress value range.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 regarding the unexpected results of the claimed stress value range have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed stress values provide unexpected results, particularly at least an A rating in both moldability and curl (See Examples 1 – 4 vs. comparatives Examples 1 – 4 in Table 3).
Examiner respectfully notes , based on the data shown in Table 3, that applicant’s unexpected results are achieved and the stress value appears critical when the MD stress value is 128.4 – 146.8 MPa and the TD stress value is 115.1 – 141.5 MPa; and, as claim 1 allows for a significantly broader MD and TD stress value {i.e. more than 115 MPa}, it is unclear if applicant’s unexpected results would be provided across such a broad stress value range. The examiner further notes that applicant’s superior results appear to particularly occur at MD and TD combinations of: 141.1 and 141.5 (See Example 1 in Table 3), 146.8 and 141.2 (See Example 2 in Table 3), and 131.0 and 115.1 (See Example 4 in Table 3). Accordingly, examiner respectfully submits that applicant’s showing unexpected results corresponds to a scope that is narrow than the scope of the claimed invention, and as MPEP 716.02(d) requires unexpected results to be commensurate with the claimed scope, applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results in unpersuasive.
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 – 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026) in view of Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 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 115 MPa or more in both a machine direction and a transverse direction when stretched by 10% in the following tensile test: a sample is stored in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH for 24 hours, a tensile test is then conducted under conditions of a sample width of 6 mm, a gauge length of 35 mm and a tension rate of 300 mm/min in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH, and a stress value in stretching by 10% , with a displacement of 3.5 mm, is measured; however, the examiner notes that the limitation “when stretched by 10% in the following tensile test: a sample is stored in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH for 24 hours, a tensile test is then conducted under conditions of a sample width of 6 mm, a gauge length of 35 mm and a tension rate of 300 mm/min in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH, and a stress value in stretching by 10%, with a displacement of 3.5 mm, is measured” is directed to an intended testing methodology of a claimed structure. Patentability of this limitation is based not on how the claimed resin film is intended to be tested, but on the actual structure of the resin film that would necessarily provide such characteristics if it were to be tested in such a way [See e.g. MPEP 2113].
Manabe teaches a polyester film suitable for use in battery packages, and particularly for use in deep drawn packages of lithium ion secondary batteries that includes an electrolyte (Abstract). Manabe further teaches, from the viewpoint of forming followability after being laminated with aluminum foil, it is necessary for the polyester film to have a stress at 5% elongation (F5 value) and a stress at 10% elongation (F10 value) at 25° C. in the longitudinal direction {i.e. is a direction perpendicular to transverse direction and thus appears to correspond to claimed machine direction (See Instant Specification: [0016]) and those in the transverse direction that satisfy Formulae (I) and (II) given: 1.5 ≥ F10MD/F5MD ≥ 1 (I) and 1.5 ≥ F10TD/F5TD ≥ 1 (II) ([0025]). Manabe further particularly teaches stress values for F10MD greater than 120 MPa and F10TD greater than 120 MPa, and that such values provide a film with high strength ([0037]). Manabe also teaches when both stress values are greater than 125 MPa increased impact resistance of the film when used in laminate assemblies for exterior packages of batteries can be ensured. ([0037 – 0038]).
Since Sasaki also teaches a polyester resin film for a packaging laminate of a battery ([0022 – 0023]; [0029 – 0030]), 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%, the resin films provides MD and TD stress value within the range taught by Manabe, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining increased impact resistance of the film.
The examiner acknowledges that the tensile testing conditions as taught by Manabe (Manabe: [0025];[0067]) are not the exact same as the tensile test conditions claimed by the applicant; however, because the resin film of modified Sasaki as established above provides under similar circumstances {i.e. stretching by 10%} an MD and TD stress value well within the claimed range {i.e. greater than 120 MPa is well within more than 115 MPa}, absent a showing that the resin film structure of the prior art would provide a stress value outside the claimed range if it were to be tested as claimed, modified Sasaki as established above appears to disclose a resin film structure that necessarily provides an MD and TD stress value within the claimed range of more than 115 MPa if it were to be stretched by 10% in the manner as claimed.
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 Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiomi (JP2017177412A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026) and Shiomi (JP2015131888A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026), 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 Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakushido (JP2007076026A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026).
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 Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiomi (JP2018184508A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026), 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 Manabe (US PG Pub. 2013/0295377 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Machida (US PG Pub. 2010/0209712 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026).
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.
Claim(s ) 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2016162622A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/20/2026) in view of Shiomi (JP2017177412A), Shiomi II (JP2015131888A), Yakushido (JP2007076026A), Shiomi III (JP2018184508A), and Machida (US PG Pub. 2010/0209712 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 115 MPa or more in both a machine direction and a transverse direction when stretched by 10% in the following tensile test: a sample is stored in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH for 24 hours, a tensile test is then conducted under conditions of a sample width of 6 mm, a gauge length of 35 mm and a tension rate of 300 mm/min in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH, and a stress value in stretching by 10% , with a displacement of 3.5 mm, is measured; however, the examiner notes that the limitation “when stretched by 10% in the following tensile test: a sample is stored in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH for 24 hours, a tensile test is then conducted under conditions of a sample width of 6 mm, a gauge length of 35 mm and a tension rate of 300 mm/min in an environment at 23°C and 40% RH, and a stress value in stretching by 10%, with a displacement of 3.5 mm, is measured” is directed to an intended testing methodology. Patentability of this limitation is based not on how the claimed resin film is intended to be tested, but on the actual structure of the resin film that would necessarily provide such characteristics if it were to be tested in such a way [See e.g. MPEP 2113].
In the instant specification, the resin film taught to exhibit such stress values when tested in the manner as claimed by applicant is taught to possess the following properties: (1) a shrinkage ratio of 1.0% or more and less than 5.0% when immersed in hot water at 95°C (See claim 1 and (Instant Specification: [0046]); (2) a work-hardening index of 1.6 or more and 3.0 or less in both the longitudinal direction and the width direction (See claim 3 and Instant Specification: [0031]); (3) a difference in word hardening index between the longitudinal direction and a width direction of 0.5 or less (See claim 3 and Instant Specification: [0031]); (4) an intrinsic viscosity of 0.66 dl/g – 0.95 dl/g (See claim 4 and Instant Specification: [0031]); (5) a rigid-amorphous content of 28% – 60% (See claim 5 and Instant Specification: [0031]); a melting point of 235°C or higher (See claim 6 and Instant Specification: [0047 – 0048]); a crystallinity degree of 15% – 40% (See claim 7 and Instant Specification: [0044]); and a rupture elongation in at least one of the longitudinal direction/width direction of 100% or more (See claim 8 and Instant Specification: [0039]). Furthermore in the instant specification the resin film is taught to be a polyester film and preferably a biaxially stretched film (Instant specification: [0030 – 0031]).
Sasaki teaches the resin film being formed from a biaxially stretched polyester film ([0029 – 0030]) and further teaches a shrinkage ratio of 0 or more and 5% or less when immersed in hot water at 95°C for 30 minutes ([0023 – 0024];[0027]), which significantly overlaps the claimed range 1.0% or more and less than 5%.
Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the longitudinal and width direction work hardening index, the difference between the two work hardening indexes, intrinsic viscosity, rigid-amorphous content, melting point, crystallinity degree or rupture of elongation in the longitudinal/width direction of the resin film; however, the examiner relies on the following to render obvious selection of such properties:
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/taught 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/taught 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/taught range of the applicant, and further that provide a difference within the claimed/taught 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)].
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/taught range of the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with improved moldability and film-forming properties. Furthermore, selection of an intrinsic viscosity within the overlapping portion of the Yakushido’s taught range and claimed/taught range of the applicant 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)].
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/taught range of the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with both heat resistance and moldability.
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 claimed/taught ranges of the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a resin film with maximized Charpy impact absorption and thus improved toughness.
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/taught range and scope of the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a film with improved processability.
Therefore, while modified Sasaki as established above does not explicitly disclose a resin film having a stress value of 115 MPa or more in both a machine direction and a transverse direction when stretched by 10% in the claimed tensile test, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resin film of modified Sasaki to inherently possess/provide the claimed stress value when tested as claimed, because the resin film of modified Sasaki, as established above, explicitly discloses or renders obvious the implied composition/structure of the resin film indicated in the instant specification and claims to be capable of providing such a stress value (Instant Specification: [0030 – 0031];[0039];[0044];[0046 – 0048]). Furthermore, the courts have found where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or art produced by identical or substantially identical processes , a prima facie case of either anticipation/obviousness In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [Also See MPEP 2112.01].
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 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 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights