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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on April 20, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416340, hereinafter Kato.
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. The example value anticipates the claim.
Kato teaches that the heat-sealable resin layer (35) and the polyolefin layer (12b) are formed of an identical resin (paragraphs [0053, 0153]). 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).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the following is also worth noting.
The laminated material (“packaging material”) is used to form an exterior material (3, “packaging case”) for a power storage device (10) (paragraph [0156] and figures 1-3). The adhesive film (1) is used to wrap the terminals (2) of the power storage device (10) (paragraph [0051] and figures 1-3). In the assembled state (figures 2 and 3), the adhesive film (1) is in a laminated state with the exterior material (3, “packaging case”), such that the polyolefin layer (12b) is on an inner surface side of the barrier layer (33, “metal foil layer”) and on an inner surface of the laminated material – as such, the polyolefin layer (12b) may also be considered the instantly claimed heat-fusible resin layer.
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.
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.
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:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416340, hereinafter Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0177798, hereinafter Ueda ‘798.
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches a heat-sealable resin layer (35) forming the inner surface of the laminated material (“packaging material”) (paragraph [0148]).
Kato fails to teach a surface roughness of the heat-sealable resin layer (35).
Ueda ‘798 teaches an analogous laminated material (“packaging material”) for an energy storage device (paragraphs [0044-0049]). Ueda ‘798 teaches a polyolefin-based film on the inner surface side of the housing, which has a surface roughness in the range 0.01 µm to 1 µm (paragraph [0047]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kato’s heat-sealable resin layer (35) with a surface roughness in the range 0.01 µm to 1 µm for the purpose of improving moldability.
The optimum range for the surface roughness in the combination of Kato as modified by Ueda ‘798 overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.07 µm to 0.3 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416340, hereinafter Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0036086, hereinafter Ueda ‘086.
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches that the polyolefin-based film may be a one-layer film (paragraph [0153]).
Kato fails to teach a lubricant.
It is well-known in the art to include lubricant in the heat-sealable resin layer of battery cell packaging materials for the purpose of improving moldability – see, e.g. Ueda ‘086. Ueda ‘086 is commonly owned with Kato and directed to an analogous battery packaging material (paragraph [0035]). Ueda ‘086’s battery packaging material includes a heat-sealable resin layer (4), which is a polyolefin-based film (paragraphs [0091-0096]). Ueda ‘086 teaches that the heat-sealable resin layer (4) includes 700 ppm to 1200 ppm of a lubricant, which is a fatty acid amide-based lubricant (paragraphs [0099-0101]).
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 700 ppm to 1200 ppm in Kato’s polyolefin-based film for the purpose of improving the moldability of the laminated material (“packaging material”).
Conclusion
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