DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1 and 5-8 are currently amended; plus, claims 9-11 are newly added.
The objections to claims 5-8 are withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to said claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 over Kawakita is withdrawn, as a result of an amendment to claim 1, from which the other claims depend. However, see infra.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4 over Kawakita as modified is withdrawn, as a result of an amendment to claim 1, from which said claim depends. However, see infra.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 plus newly added claims 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7-11 of copending Application No. 18/239076 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims are broader than those of the reference application; further, the reference application claims “the substrate protective layer contains a binder resin and solid fine particles” and “a total content rate of the solid fine particles in the substrate protective layer is 30 mass % to 50 mass %,” so a balance of said substrate protective layer may be an amount of “binder resin,” which may be calculated to be 50-70 mass %, the claims of the reference severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), of claims 1 and 3-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 plus newly added claims 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7-11 of copending Application No. 18/135655 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims are broader than those of the reference application; further, the reference application claims “the substrate protective layer contains a binder resin, soft resin fine particles…, and inorganic fine particles, as solid fine particles” and “a total content rate of the solid fine particles in the substrate protective layer is 30 mass % to 50 mass %,” so a balance of said substrate protective layer may be an amount of “binder resin” and “soft resin fine particles,” so an amount of said “binder resin” may be calculated to be greater than 50 mass % to less than 70 mass %, the claims of the reference severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), of claims 1 and 3-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/116315 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims are broader than those of the reference application; further, the reference application claims “the substrate protective layer includes a binder resin and solid fine particles which are wax, resin beads and inorganic fine particles” (reference claim 1) and “a total content rate of the wax, the resin beads, and the inorganic fine particles in the substrate protective layer is 30 mass % to 50 mass %” (reference claim 2), so a balance of said substrate protective layer may be an amount of “binder resin,” which may be calculated to be 50-70 mass %, the claims of the reference severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), of claims 3-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/109832 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims are broader than those of the reference application; further, the reference application claims “the substrate protective layer includes a binder resin, and wax, resin beads, and inorganic fine particles as solid fine particles” (reference claim 1) and “a total content rate of the wax, the resin beads, and the inorganic fine particles is 30 mass % to 50 mass %” (reference claim 2), so a balance of said substrate protective layer may be an amount of “binder resin,” which may be calculated to be 50-70 mass %, the claims of the reference severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), of claims 3-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding newly added claims 9 and 11, the limitation “exemplified by” in “the solid fine particles include inorganic fine particles that are exemplified by silica, alumina, kaolin, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate, and calcium silicate” is not clear as to the scope of the solid fine particles. For example, it might be interpreted to mean the scope is (a) limited to only the enumerated compounds “silica, alumina, kaolin, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate, and calcium silicate;” (b) limited to compositions similar to said enumerated compounds; or, (c) broadly providing for compositions, including said enumerated compounds.
For purposes of examination, said limitation is interpreted as provided infra.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 plus newly added claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita et al (JP 2019/217726).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Kawakita teaches a moldable packaging material (e.g. item 1) for use as packaging for a variety of applications including lithium-ion secondary batteries,
said packaging material comprising:
(i) a protective layer (e.g. item 20) integrally laminated to an outer surface of an outer layer (e.g. item 2) via an easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11), said protective layer being the outermost layer of said packaging material;
(ii) said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) integrally laminated between said protective layer (e.g. item 20) and said outer surface of said outer layer (e.g. item 2);
(iii) said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) integrally laminated to an inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. item 20) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11);
(iv) a second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12) laminated on a lower surface of said outer layer/heat-resistant resin stretched film layer (e.g. item 2);
(v) a colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) laminated on a lower surface of said second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12);
(vi) a first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) bonding and integrating together said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) and a metal foil layer (e.g. item 4);
(vii) said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) bonded and integrated to said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5);
(viii) a second adhesive layer (e.g. item 6) bonding and integrating said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) to a thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”);
(ix) said thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”) laminated integrally on an inner surface of said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) via said second adhesive layer (e.g. item 6),
wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising a resin composition that comprises inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles dispersed in a heat-resistant resin,
(i.a) said inorganic fine particles may be e.g. silica, alumina, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate;
(i.b) said organic fine particles are not particularly limited, but examples include acrylic resin beads, styrene resin beads, and urethane resin beads; and
(i.c) said heat-resistant resin is preferably a two-component curing heat-resistant resin, examples include e.g. acrylic resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, polyolefin resins, fluorine-based resins, and phenoxy resins, with urethane resins being preferred,
wherein a content of said inorganic/organic fine particles in said resin composition is preferably 0.1% by mass to 60% by mass,
an average particle size of said inorganic/organic fine particles is preferably 0.5 μm to 10 μm
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001 and 28-33 plus e.g. Figures 1-3), reading on “battery packaging material,” said packaging material comprising:
(1) said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) integrally laminated to said an inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. item 20) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) (e.g. supra),
said combination/laminate of said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) plus said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) corresponding with the claimed “substrate layer,”
reading on “a substrate layer,” as claimed;
(2) said thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”) laminated integrally on said inner surface of said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) via said second adhesive layer (e.g. item 6) (e.g. supra),
said thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”) corresponding with the claimed “heat-fusible resin layer,”
reading on “a heat-fusible resin layer;”
(3) said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) bonded and integrated to said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) and located between said outer layer and said inner layer (e.g. supra),
said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) corresponding with the claimed “barrier layer,”
reading on “a barrier layer arranged between the substrate layer and the heat-fusible resin layer; and,
(4) said protective layer (e.g. item 20) integrally laminated to said outer surface of said outer layer (e.g. item 2) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11), said protective layer being the outermost layer of said packaging material (e.g. supra), further noting said combination/laminate of said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) plus said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) corresponding with the claimed “substrate layer” (e.g. supra),
said protective layer (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “substrate protective layer,”
reading on the newly amended limitation “a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer directly on an outer side of the substrate layer,” as claimed,
wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, said heat-resistant resin is preferably said two-component curing heat-resistant resin, examples include e.g. acrylic resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, polyolefin resins, fluorine-based resins, and phenoxy resins, with urethane resins being preferred (e.g. supra),
wherein said resin composition is a substantially identical resin composition (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0019, 60-66, 70, 118, and 138-139), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness that said resin composition is a “binder,’ see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
reading on “the substrate protective layer includes a binder resin and solid fine particles,”
wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said content of said inorganic/organic fine particles in said resin composition is preferably 0.1% by mass to 60% by mass (e.g. (supra), so said heat-resistant resin may be the balance of said protective layer, and a mass % of said heat-resistant resin may be calculated to be e.g. 40-99.9 mass%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a content rate of the binder resin in the substrate protective layer is 45 mass% to 70 mass%.”
Regarding claim 2, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprises said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, said heat-resistant resin is preferably said two-component curing heat-resistant resin, examples include e.g. acrylic resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, polyolefin resins, fluorine-based resins, and phenoxy resins, with urethane resins being preferred (e.g. supra), reading on “the binder resin is at least one type of a resin selected from the group consisting of an acryl-based resin, a urethane-based resin, a polyolefin-based resin, a phenoxy-based resin, and a polyester-based resin.”
Regarding claim 3, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprises said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said content of said inorganic/organic fine particles in said resin composition is preferably 0.1% by mass to 60% by mass (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the solid fine particles are composed of inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles, and a content rate of the solid fine particles in the substrate protective layer is 30 mass% to 55 mass%.
Regarding claims 5-6, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprises said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said inorganic fine particles may be e.g. silica, alumina, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate (e.g. supra),
wherein said Kawakita teaches calcium carbonate is a colored pigment (¶0074 see also instant specification, at e.g. ¶0113), said calcium carbonate in said protective layer reading on “a coloring agent is further contained in at least one of the substrate protective layer and the substrate layer” (claim 5) and “a coloring agent is further contained in at least one of the substrate protective layer, the substrate layer, and the adhesive layer” (claim 6),
wherein said packaging material comprises:
(iii) said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) integrally laminated to said inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. item 20) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11);
(iv) said second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12) laminated on said lower surface of said outer layer/heat-resistant resin stretched film layer (e.g. item 2);
(v) said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) laminated on said lower surface of said second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12);
(vi) said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) bonding and integrating together said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) and said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4);
(vii) said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) bonded and integrated to said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5)
(e.g. supra),
said combination/laminate of said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) plus said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) corresponding with the claimed “substrate layer,”
said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) corresponding with the claimed “colored layer;”
said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) corresponding with the claimed “adhesive layer;” and,
said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) corresponding with the claimed “barrier layer,”
reading on “the barrier layer and the substrate layer are laminated via an adhesive layer” (claim 6).
Regarding newly amended claims 7-8, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said packaging material comprises:
(i) said protective layer (e.g. item 20) integrally laminated to said outer surface of said outer layer (e.g. item 2) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11);
(ii) said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) integrally laminated between said protective layer (e.g. item 20) and said outer surface of said outer layer (e.g. item 2);
(iii) said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) integrally laminated to said inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. item 20) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11);
(iv) said second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12) laminated on said lower surface of said outer layer/heat-resistant resin stretched film layer (e.g. item 2);
(v) said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) laminated on said lower surface of said second adhesion layer (e.g. item 12);
(vi) said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) bonding and integrating together said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) and said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4);
(vii) said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) bonded and integrated to said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5)
(e.g. supra),
said protective layer (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “substrate protective layer;”
said combination/laminate of said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) plus said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) corresponding with the claimed “substrate layer,”
said colored ink layer (e.g. item 13) corresponding with the claimed “colored layer;”
said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) corresponding with the claimed “adhesive layer;” and,
said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) corresponding with the claimed “barrier layer,”
reading on the newly amended limitation “further comprising a colored layer arranged between the substrate layer and the barrier layer” (newly amended claim 7); plus, the newly amended limitation “the barrier layer and the substrate layer are further laminated via an adhesive layer, andcolored layer is further arranged at least one of between the substrate layer and the adhesive layer, and between the adhesive layer and the barrier layer” (newly amended claim 8).
Regarding newly added claim 9, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said resin composition that comprises inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said inorganic fine particles may be e.g. silica, alumina, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate (e.g. supra), reading on “the solid fine particles include inorganic fine particles that are exemplified by silica, alumina, kaolin, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate, and calcium silicate.”
Regarding newly added claims 10-11, Kawakita is applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Still regarding independent claim 10, Kawakita teaches said packaging material comprising:
(1) said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) integrally laminated to said an inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. item 20) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) (e.g. supra),
said outer layer (e.g. item 2, also “heat-resistant resin stretched film”) corresponding with the claimed “substrate layer,”
reading on “a substrate layer;”
(2) said thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”) laminated integrally on said inner surface of said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) via said second adhesive layer (e.g. item 6) (e.g. supra),
said thermoplastic resin layer (e.g. item 3, also “inner layer”) corresponding with the claimed “heat-fusible resin layer,”
reading on “a heat-fusible resin layer;”
(3) said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) bonded and integrated to said first adhesive layer (e.g. item 5) and located between said outer layer and said inner layer (e.g. supra),
said metal foil layer (e.g. item 4) corresponding with the claimed “barrier layer,”
reading on “a barrier layer arranged between the substrate layer and the heat-fusible resin layer; and,
(4) said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) integrally laminating an outer surface of said outer layer with said inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. supra plus e.g. Figure 1),
said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) corresponding with the claimed “colored layer,” see also infra,
reading on “a…layer arranged directly on an outer side of the substrate layer;” and,
(5) said protective layer (e.g. item 20) integrally laminated to said outer surface of said outer layer (e.g. item 2) via said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11), said protective layer being the outermost layer of said packaging material (e.g. supra),
said protective layer (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “substrate protective layer,”
reading on “a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer on an outer side of the…layer such that the…layer is sandwiched between the substrate layer and the substrate protective layer,”
wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, said heat-resistant resin is preferably said two-component curing heat-resistant resin, examples include e.g. acrylic resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, polyolefin resins, fluorine-based resins, and phenoxy resins, with urethane resins being preferred (e.g. supra),
wherein said resin composition is a substantially identical resin composition (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0019, 60-66, 70, 118, and 138-139), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness that said resin composition is a “binder,’ see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
reading on “the substrate protective layer includes a binder resin and solid fine particles,”
wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said content of said inorganic/organic fine particles in said resin composition is preferably 0.1% by mass to 60% by mass (e.g. (supra), so said heat-resistant resin may be the balance of said protective layer, and a mass % of said heat-resistant resin may be calculated to be e.g. 40-99.9 mass%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a content rate of the binder resin in the substrate protective layer is 45 mass% to 70 mass%.”
Regarding (4), Kawakita teaches said easy-adhesion layer (e.g. item 11) integrally laminating an outer surface of said outer layer with said inner surface of said protective layer (e.g. supra plus e.g. Figure 1),
wherein said easy-adhesion layer may comprise inorganic fine particles such as silica and colloidal silica (e.g. ¶¶ 0047-52), wherein the instant specification teaches inorganic fine particles are exemplified by silica, alumina, kaolin, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate, and calcium silicate…contribute to the adjustment of the glossiness (gloss value) of the coating film, see instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0072 and 111-116), reading on “colored layer,” as claimed.
In the alternative, Kawakita teaches said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising a resin composition that comprises inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles dispersed in a heat-resistant resin, wherein said inorganic fine particles may be e.g. silica, alumina, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate (e.g. supra).
As a result, it would have been obvious to substitute at least some of the silica of the easy-adhesion layer with some calcium carbonate, since they are equivalent inorganic fine particles suitable for use in a resin layer, further noting that calcium carbonate is a coloring agent (see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0111-115), said layer with said calcium carbonate inorganic fine particles reading on “colored layer,” as claimed.
Kawakita reading on “a colored layer arranged directly on an outer side of the substrate layer;” and, “a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer on an outer side of the colored layer such that the colored layer is sandwiched between the substrate layer and the substrate protective layer.”
Still regarding newly added claim 11, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said resin composition that comprises inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein said inorganic fine particles may be e.g. silica, alumina, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate (e.g. supra), reading on “the solid fine particles include inorganic fine particles that are exemplified by silica, alumina, kaolin, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate, and calcium silicate.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita et al (JP 2019/217726), as provided supra, in view of Murata et al (WO 2020/230629, with citations to US 2022/0029225).
Regarding claim 4, Kawakita teaches the packaging material of claim 3, wherein said protective layer (e.g. item 20) comprising said resin composition that comprises said inorganic fine particles and said organic fine particles dispersed in said heat-resistant resin, wherein a content of said inorganic/organic fine particles in said resin composition is preferably 0.1% by mass to 60% by mass, and said average particle size of said inorganic/organic fine particles is preferably 0.5 μm to 10 μm (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach “a content rate of the solid fine particles having an average particle diameter of 5 µm to 20 µm in the substrate protective layer is 1 mass% to 20 mass%.”
However, Murata teaches a packaging material for a lithium ion battery, said packaging material comprising a laminate comprising a plurality of layers in the following order—from an outer surface to an inner surface of said packaging: a substrate protective layer (e.g. item 12), a substrate layer (e.g. item 11), adhesive layer (e.g. item 13), a metal foil layer (e.g. item 14), sealant adhesive layer (e.g. item 16), and a sealant layer (e.g. item 17),
wherein said packaging material provides an improved outer surface of said substrate protective layer to which pressure sensitive adhesive tape (“PSA tape”) is applied to fix said lithium ion battery to an electric device,
said improved outer surface of said substrate protective layer provides a means by which said PSA tape may be removed without leaving an adhesive residue on said outer surface of said packaging material,
wherein Murata teaches said substrate protective layer (e.g. item 12) comprises a plurality of types of particles having different average particle sizes, said types of particles including:
a large filler having a particle size of 10 µm or larger,
said large filler may be composed of organic particles, which may be polyolefin particles such as polyethylene particles, acrylic particles, urethane particles, and polyester particles,
said large filler may be present in an amount of 3-25 mass% or more in said substrate protective layer; and,
a small filler having a particle size of 1-5 µm,
said small filler may be composed of inorganic particles, which may be e.g. silica particles, alumina particles, barium sulfate particles, calcium carbonate particles, and titanium oxide particles,
said small filler may be present in an amount of 5-50 mass% in said substrate protective layer,
wherein said large filler and said small filler in the specifically described sizes and amounts results in a sufficiently rough surface so that said PSA tape may be peeled off without leaving an adhesive residue, but while allowing said PSA tape to be firmly adhered to said outer surface of said substrate protective layer of said packaging material;
further, said large filler and said small filler in the specifically described sizes and amounts results in said outer surface of said substrate protective layer having a matte surface that is uniform and dense, thus allowing said outer surface of said substrate protective layer to have a good appearance without roughness
(e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 09-14, 20-25, 33, 39-40, and 46-57 plus e.g. Figure 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to further optimize the particle size of the organic fine particles of Kawakita so that they have the size and mass% as taught by Murata—10 µm in size and in an amount of 3-25 mass% (i.e. a narrower size and amount that are within the broader teachings of Kawakita), since Murata teaches said size and amount in part result in an outer surface of said substrate protective layer in part results in a sufficiently rough surface so that PSA tape may be peeled off without leaving an adhesive residue, but while allowing said PSA tape to be firmly adhered to said outer surface of said substrate protective layer of said packaging material; and/or, in part results in said outer surface of said substrate protective layer having a matte surface that is uniform and dense, thus allowing said outer surface of said substrate protective layer to have a good appearance without roughness.
As a result, it would have been obvious to further optimize the particle size of the inorganic fine particles of Kawakita so that they have the size and mass% as taught by Murata—1-5 µm in size and in an amount of 5-50 mass% (i.e. a narrower size and amount that are within the broader teachings of Kawakita), since Murata teaches said size and amount in part result in an outer surface of said substrate protective layer in part results in a sufficiently rough surface so that PSA tape may be peeled off without leaving an adhesive residue, but while allowing said PSA tape to be firmly adhered to said outer surface of said substrate protective layer of said packaging material; and/or, in part results in said outer surface of said substrate protective layer having a matte surface that is uniform and dense, thus allowing said outer surface of said substrate protective layer to have a good appearance without roughness.
Said organic fine particles of Kawakita as modified severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on said limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a preliminary matter, the examiner thanks the applicant for providing on the record the pinpoint citations for the support in the initial filings for the amendments and newly added claims.
First, the applicant alleges the following.
The Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claims as they are set forth herein, since there is no evidentiary support for the conclusion that the features recited in the claims were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that such evidentiary support be placed on the record, or the obviousness rejections withdrawn.
Independent claim 1 recites a battery packaging material comprising: a substrate layer; a heat-fusible resin layer; a barrier layer arranged between the substrate layer and the heat-fusible resin layer; and a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer directly on an outer side of the substrate layer, wherein the substrate protective layer includes a binder resin and solid fine particles, and wherein a content rate of the binder resin in the substrate protective layer is 45 mass% to 70 mass%. The Applicant submits that the applied reference does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations recited in independent claim 1.
The Office Action appears to cite resin stretched film layer (2) of Kawakita et al. for a teaching of the recited substrate layer, thermoplastic resin layer (3) for the recited heat-fusible resin layer, metal foil layer (4) for the recited barrier layer, and protective layer (20) for the recited substrate protective layer. The Applicant submits that Kawakita et al. does not disclose or suggest a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer directly on an outer side of the substrate layer, as recited in independent claim 1.
As noted above, the Office Action appears to cite resin stretched film layer (2) of Kawakita et al. for a teaching of the recited substrate layer, and protective layer (20) for the recited substrate protective layer. Kawakita et al. describes that the protective layer (20) is laminated and integrated on the outer surface of the heat-resistant resin stretched film layer (2) via a first easy adhesion layer (11). Such an arrangement is clearly depicted in FIG. 1 of Kawakita et al. Thus, Kawakita et al. does not disclose or suggest a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer directly on an outer side of the substrate layer, as recited in independent claim 1. Rather, first easy adhesion layer (11) is interposed between stretched film layer (2) and protective layer (20), and thus protective layer (20) is not directly on stretched film layer (2). The first easy adhesion layer (11) is essential in Kawakita et al., since it prevents the protective layer (20) from peeling off.
Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the applied references do not disclose or suggest all of the limitations recited in independent claim 1. Thus, the Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
(Remarks, at 6:4-7:5, emphasis in the original.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra, noting the scope of the claimed limitations, as claimed.
Second, the applicant alleges the following.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a battery packaging material that includes a substrate layer; a heat-fusible resin layer; a barrier layer arranged between the substrate layer and the heat-fusible resin layer; a colored layer arranged directly on an outer side of the substrate layer; and a substrate protective layer arranged as an outermost layer on an outer side of the colored layer such that the colored layer is sandwiched between the substrate layer and the substrate protective layer. The substrate protective layer includes a binder resin and solid fine particles. A content rate of the binder resin in the substrate protective layer is 45 mass% to 70 mass%.
Kawakita et al. does not disclose or suggest a colored layer arranged directly on an outer side of the substrate layer. As discussed above, in Kawakita et al., the first easy adhesion layer (11) is essential, since it prevents the layer arranged on the substrate layer from peeling off. Thus, Kawakita et al. does not disclose or suggest a colored layer arranged directly on an outer side of the substrate layer.
Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the applied references do not disclose or suggest all of the limitations recited in independent claim 10. Thus, the Applicant submits that new independent claim 10 is allowable.
(Remarks, at 8:1-8:3, emphasis in the original.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra, noting the scope of the claimed limitations, as claimed.
Third, the applicant alleges the following.
The dependent claims are considered allowable for the reasons advanced for the independent claims from which they depend. These claims are further considered allowable as they recite other features of the invention that are neither disclosed nor suggested by the applied references when those features are considered within the context of their respective independent claim.
(Remarks, at 8:4.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Minamibori (US 2018/0183017)
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 YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights