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 Arguments
Applicant's reply to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/27/2026 includes an amendment to the specification and claim amendments. The amendment to the specification (a legible version of Table 3) is accepted, and the objection to the specification set forth in the previous action is withdrawn. Applicant’s claim amendments resolve the 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous action, and therefore the 112(b) rejection is also withdrawn.
Regarding the claimed difference between the work hardening exponents in the longitudinal and width directions in Claim 1, the range has been amended from “0.5 or less” to “0.3 or less.” Applicant argues the amended range is not taught or suggested by the primary reference Shiomi. Although Shiomi teaches an overlapping range (0.5 or less ([0006]), Examiner has cited an additional reference (Akamastu et al., US 20180272594 A1) that teaches a difference in elongation stresses in multiple directions should be as small as possible. See updated portions of the action below in underlined text.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiomi et al., JP
2017177412 A, and further in view of Akamastu et al., US 20180272594 A1, and Osaki et al., JP 2018184508 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Shiomi discloses a power storage device packaging material comprising a laminate (laminate material used for battery exterior packaging [0006]) including:
at least a base material layer (polyester film [0006]), a barrier layer (metal foil [0006]), and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order (sealant layer is heat laminated [0006, 0020], order of layers [0020, 0032]), wherein:
wherein the base material layer contains a polyester film (polyester film [0006-0014]), and the polyester film includes:
a work hardening exponent of 1.6 or more and 3.0 or less in both longitudinal and width directions (work hardening index in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction perpendicular thereto is 2.5 to 3.0 [0006]).
Regarding the claimed “difference of 0.3 or less between the work hardening exponents in the longitudinal and width directions,” Shiomi discloses a permitted difference of 0.5 ([0006]), which overlaps with the claimed range. This limitation is also addressed by Akamatsu et al.
Akamatsu teaches a polyester lamination film for battery packaging, wherein the film “is required to extend uniformly in all directions,” including the MD and TD directions ([0006-0015]). Akamatsu teaches when the film does not extend uniformly in all directions, the laminate layers may break during molding, delamination or pin holes may occur in the film, and the packaged object may be damaged ([0007]). Akamatsu teaches the film “is required to be reduced as much as possible in the variations of the physical properties in the respective directions,” and specifically mentions one of the physical properties is elongation stress of the polyester film in multiple directions ([0060-0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to reduce the difference of work hardening exponents in the longitudinal and width directions, in the polyester film of Shiomi, as Akamatsu teaches the difference should be reduced as much as possible in order to avoid breakage, delamination, or pin holes.
Modified Shiomi does not disclose the polyester film has “an intrinsic viscosity of 0.66 dL/g or more and 0.95 dL/g or less,” and also does not disclose the polyester film has “a rigid amorphous fraction of 28% or more and 60% or less.” However, these limitations are taught by Osaki et al.
Osaki teaches a polyester film as a packaging material for lithium ion batteries ([0002, 0017]). Osaki teaches when a rigid amorphous fraction of the polyester is 33% or more and 60% or less, the polyester will have “excellent toughness and can be suitably used in applications requiring toughness” ([0006-0009, 0027, 0042]). Osaki teaches if the rigid amorphous content exceeds 60%, the polyester film will have decreased dimensional stability, and a rigid amorphous content below 33% leads to insufficient impact absorption capabilities of the polyester film ([0008]). Osaki teaches the rigid amorphous fraction can be controlled by varying the intrinsic viscosity of the polyester film, and teaches an optimal range of intrinsic viscosity as 0.60 or more and 1.2 or less (range [0008]; Polyester B: 0.7 [0031]; Polyester C: 0.75 [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the polyester film of modified Shiomi possess a rigid amorphous fraction and an intrinsic viscosity within the claimed ranges, and would have been motivated to do so, as Osaki teaches rigid amorphous fractions and an intrinsic viscosities within the claimed ranges contribute to a battery packaging film with excellent toughness.
Additionally, before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimal rigid amorphous content of modified Shiomi’s polyester film, as Osaki teaches the content should be high enough (at least 33%) to enable sufficient impact absorption capabilities, but not so high (not higher than 60%) to decrease the dimensional stability of the film.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) [MPEP § 2144.05, II].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Shiomi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Shiomi discloses the polyester film has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 40 µm or less (Shiomi, 4 µm to 30 µm [0006-0013]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Shiomi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Shiomi discloses the polyester film has a melting point of 235°C or more (Shiomi, melting point of 235°C [0006]; Examples: Polyester was melted at 280°C [0036, 0040]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shiomi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Shiomi does not disclose “the polyester film has a degree of crystallinity of 15% or more and 40% or less.” However, this limitation is also taught by Osaki.
Osaki teaches the mechanical strength of the polyester film can be controlled by varying the degree of crystallinity ([0006-0010]). Osaki teaches if the crystallinity is less than 25%, the impact absorption energy of the polyester film may be too low, and a crystallinity of more than 35% will negatively impact the amount of rigid amorphous content in the film ([0010]). Osaki teaches in order to maximize the impact energy absorption of the polyester film, the proportion of rigid amorphous content in the film should be higher than the degree of crystallinity ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the polyester film of modified Shiomi possess a degree of crystallinity within the claimed range, and would have been motivated to do so, as Osaki teaches polyester films having a degree of crystallinity between 25% and 35% allow for a sufficient proportion of rigid amorphous content, thereby maximizing the impact energy absorption of the film.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) [MPEP § 2144.05, II].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shiomi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahagi et al., US 20160301040 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Shiomi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Shiomi does not disclose the polyester film has “a rupture elongation of 100% or more in at least one of the longitudinal and width directions.” However, this limitation is taught by Takahagi et al.
Takahagi teaches a polyester resin layer for battery packaging, wherein a tensile rupture elongation in each of the MD direction and the TD direction is set in the range of 85% to 130% ([0017]). Takahagi teaches the tensile rupture elongation is even more preferably in the range of 90% to 120%, in order to reduce pinholes and cracks during molding, and to impart excellent electrolytic solution resistance to the battery packaging material ([0092-0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the polyester film of modified Shiomi possess a rupture elongation in the longitudinal and/or width direction within the claimed range, and would have been motivated to do so, as Takahagi teaches polyester films having a tensile rupture elongation in each of the MD direction and the TD direction in the range of 90% to 120% will have reduced pinholes and cracks, improved moldability, and excellent electrolytic solution resistance.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Shiomi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Shiomi discloses a power storage device (Shiomi, lithium battery [0001-0003]) comprising:
the packaging material of Claim 1 (Shiomi, [0014, 0046]). Modified Shiomi does not disclose “a power storage device element comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte,” wherein the power storage device element is “housed in a package formed of the power storage device packaging material.” However, these limitations are also taught by Takahagi.
Takahagi teaches a power storage device element comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (a battery element including at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte [0077-0079]). Takahagi also teaches the power storage device element is housed in a package formed of a polyester laminate packaging material ([0080-0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the power storage device of modified Shiomi further comprise a power storage device element comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the device element is housed in a package formed of the power storage device packaging material, as Takahagi teaches this configuration is appropriate for a battery packaging material comprising a polyester film.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights