DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on February 13, 2026. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 6 and 7 are newly added. Claims 1-7 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. The use of the relative pronouns “which” and “that” is discouraged in claims due to the potential ambiguity of the intended referent.
Applicant is encouraged to rephrase the last three lines of the claim to read:
“wherein the heat-fusible resin layer includes a roughening material, the roughening material includes acrylic resin beads or polyethylene resin beads and a mass content of the roughening material in the heat-fusible resin layer is 3,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416340, hereinafter Kato in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0123093, hereinafter Yoshino.
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a laminated material (“packaging material”) for a power storage device (10) (paragraph [0123]).
The laminated material (“packaging material”) includes a barrier layer (33), which is a metal foil (paragraphs [0123, 0140]). A base material layer (31, “substrate layer”) is provided on an outer surface side of the barrier layer (33, “metal foil layer”) (paragraph [0123] and figure 6). A heat-sealable resin layer (35) is provided on an inner surface side of the barrier layer (33, “metal foil layer”) (paragraph [0123] and figure 6).
The heat-sealable resin layer (35) is arranged on an inner surface of the laminated material (paragraph [0148]).
The heat-sealable resin layer (35) is formed of a polyolefin-based film (paragraphs [0149-0153]).
Kato further teaches an adhesive film (1) comprising a polyolefin layer (12b) (paragraphs [0052, 0053] and figures 4 and 5). The polyolefin layer (12b) has an indentation elastic modulus in the range 400 MPa to 1500 MPa and an indentation hardness in the range to 8 N/mm2 (MPa) to 60 N/mm2 (MPa) (paragraphs [0072, 0073]). In a specific example, Kato teaches an indentation modulus of 1067.8 MPa and an indentation hardness of 37.3 N/mm2 (MPa) (Table 1, Example 3). The resulting ratio is 28.6.
Kato teaches that the heat-sealable resin layer (35) and the polyolefin layer (12b) are formed of an identical resin (paragraphs [0053, 0153]). Therefore, it is thus understood that the heat-sealable resin layer (35) has the same indentation modulus, indentation hardness and ratio as the polyolefin layer (12b).
While Kato’s measurements are performed using a Vickers indenter rather than a Berkovich indenter, it is expected that measurements with a Berkovich indenter would produce consistent results and thus Kato’s teachings are considered to anticipate the claimed invention.
Kato teaches that the heat-sealable resin layer (35) may include multiple layers (paragraph [0153]).
Kato fails to teach that the heat-sealable resin layer (35) includes a roughening material.
Yoshino teaches an analogous packaging material (1) for an energy storage device. The packaging material (1) includes a metal foil layer (4) and a sealant layer (3) provided on an inner surface side of the metal foil layer (4) (paragraph [0064] and figures 1-3). The sealant layer (3) is a polyolefin-based film and includes a roughening material (paragraphs [0064, 0072, 0102, 0107]). The roughening material is polyethylene resin particles and its purpose is to improve the slipperiness of the layer (paragraph [0075]). The roughening material is present within seal layer (7), which is an innermost layer of the sealant layer (3). The roughening material is present at 1 mass% to 30 mass% (10,000 ppm to 300,000 ppm) of the seal layer (7) (paragraph [0097]). Given that the sealant layer (3) includes layer (7) and that the roughening material is only present in layer (7), the concentration of roughening material relative to the full sealant layer (3) is less than 1 mass% to 30 mass% (10,000 ppm to 300,000 ppm). Within the ranges taught by Yoshino, it is possible to select values which would result in the instantly claimed mass content range for the roughening material. For instance, in Yoshino’s examples, the layer (7) has a thickness of 6 µm, while the full sealant layer (3) is 40 µm (paragraph [0131]). The material of the full sealant layer (3) excluding the roughening material is approximately uniform. Selecting a concentration for the roughening material of 3 mass% in the layer (7) would result in approximately 4,500 ppm of the roughening material in the full sealant layer (3). Therefore, Yoshino’s roughening material concentration is understood to overlap the instantly claimed range of 3,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an innermost seal layer comprising a roughening material in the form of polyethylene resin pellets at the concentration taught by Yoshino in Kato’s heat-sealable resin layer (35) for the purpose of improving its slipperiness.
Regarding claim 2, Kato as modified by Yoshino teaches that the center line average roughness Ra of the inner surface of the packaging material is in the range 0.05 µm to 1 µm (Yoshino’s paragraph [0094]). In specific examples, the center line average roughness Ra is 0.13 µm, 0.18 µm, 0.25 µm (Yoshino’s Table 1, Examples 1-4).
Kato as modified by Yoshino does not report the average roughness Sa.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the areal average roughness (Sa) matches Yoshino’s line average roughness (Ra) for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of the roughness across the surface of the material and thus achieving the slipperiness quality taught by Yoshino.
Regarding claim 3, Kato as modified by Yoshino teaches that the polyolefin-based film has multiple layers (Kato’s paragraph [0153]). Kato as modified by Yoshino teaches an innermost seal layer, which forms the inner surface of the laminated material (“packaging material”).
Kato fails to teach a lubricant.
Yoshino teaches that the seal layer (7) includes a fatty acid amide-based lubricant present at up to 1,000 ppm (paragraphs [0097, 0098]). In a specific example, Yoshino teaches 500 ppm (paragraph [0131]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fatty acid amide-based lubricant at a content of 500 ppm in the innermost seal layer for the purpose of improving the formability of the laminated material (“packaging material”).
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches an exterior material (3, “packaging case”) for a power storage device (10) (paragraph [0156] and figures 1-3). The exterior material (3, “packaging case”) is a molded article formed from the laminated material of claim 1 (paragraph [0123]).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claim 4 recites that the “article” is formed by deep-drawn molding or stretch-molding. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, Kato’s exterior material (3, “packaging case”) is capable of being molded through deep-drawn molding or stretch-molding. The final product of the art is structurally the same as discussed above and therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Kato teaches a power storage device (10). The power storage device (10) includes an electrode storage device element (4, “main body”) accommodated in an exterior material (3, “packaging case”) (paragraph [0156] and figures 1-3). The exterior material (3, “packaging case”) is a molded article formed from the laminated material of claim 1 (paragraph [0123]).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claim 5 recites that the “article” is formed by deep-drawn molding or stretch-molding. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, Kato’s exterior material (3, “packaging case”) is capable of being molded through deep-drawn molding or stretch-molding. The final product of the art is structurally the same as discussed above and therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Kato as modified by Yoshino teaches that the heat-sealable resin layer includes an innermost seal layer at an inner surface side of the heat-sealable resin layer. The innermost seal layer has a thickness in the range 2 µm to 40 µm (Yoshino’s paragraph [0100]). In a specific example, the innermost seal layer has a thickness of 6 µm (Yoshino’s paragraph [0131])
Regarding claim 7, Kato as modified by Yoshino teaches that the average particle diameter of the polyethylene resin particles is in the range 0.05 µm to 10 µm (paragraph [0077]).
The optimum range of Kato as modified by Yoshino overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 5 µm to 20 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Kato and Yoshino references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights