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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 3/6/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, this claim does not further limit claim 1 as its limitations are already claimed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al (JP 2018-060758 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Ogiwara et al (JP 2018-060758 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ogiwara discloses a terminal resin film which is disposed covering part of an outer peripheral surface of a metal terminal that is electrically connected to a power device storage body configuring a power storage device (an exterior packaging material for an electricity storage device covering a part of a tab #42; Fig. 7; paragraph [0013]) comprising: a layer that contains a ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin having a weight average molecular weight of 2.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106 (sealant layer contains a ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin having a weight average molecular weight of 2.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106; paragraph [0013]) and wherein a content of the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin is 5 to 50 mass% with respect to a total mass of the terminal resin film (sealant layer being 5.0 to 50 mass% based on the total mass of the sealant layer; paragraph [0015]).
The ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin having a weight average molecular weight of 2.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106 overlaps the claimed range for the weight average molecular weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to maintain insulation properties after heat sealing, molding and degassing heat sealing even when the sealant layer is made thin (paragraphs [0012]-[0013] of Ogiwara). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 1 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising a content of the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin is 5 to 50 mass% with respect to a total mass of the terminal resin film (sealant layer being 5.0 to 50 mass% based on the total mass of the sealant layer; paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 1 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin comprising polypropylene (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 1 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising a plurality of layers (the sealant layer #16 comprising a plurality of layers comprising a first sealant layer #16a and a second sealant layer #16b; Fig. 3; paragraphs [0170]-[0171]) where at least one of the plurality of layers being the layer containing the ultrahigh molecular weight polyolefin resin (first sealant layer comprises the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin; paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 5, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 1 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising an innermost layer disposed on a surface of a metal terminal the sealant layer comprising a plurality of layers (second sealant layer; Fig. 3 #16b; paragraph [0171]), an outermost layer disposed on a surface on an opposite side to the innermost layer (a corrosion prevention treatment layer; Fig. 2 #14; paragraph [0055]) and an intermediate layer disposed between the innermost layer and the outermost layer (first sealant layer; Fig. 3 #16a; paragraph [0171]) and wherein the intermediate layer containing the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin (the first sealant layer comprises the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin; paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 6, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 5 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising only the intermediate layer containing the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin (the first sealant layer comprises the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin; paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 7, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 5 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising innermost layer containing a resin having a polar group (sealant layer 16b comprising linear low density polyethylene based acid-modified polyethylene; paragraphs [0212]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 8, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 5 as noted above.
Since the structure of the exterior packaging material of Ogiwara is the same as the structure of the terminal resin of claim 1, the exterior packaging material of Ogiwara would inherently have a melt flow rate MFR1 of the innermost layer at 230°C, a melt flow rate MFR2 of the outermost layer at 230°C, and a melt flow rate MFR3 of the intermediate layer at 230°C, the MFR3 is 0.1 to 2.5 g/10 min; and a difference between the MFR1 and the MFR3 (MFR1 - MFR3) and a difference between the MFR2 and the MFR3 (MFR2 - MFR3) are both 5 to 30 g/10 min.
Regarding claim 9, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 5 as noted above.
Since the structure of the exterior packaging material of Ogiwara is the same as the structure of the terminal resin of claim 1, the exterior packaging material of Ogiwara would inherently have a melting point Tm1 of the innermost layer, a melting point Tm2 of the outermost layer, and a melting point Tm3 of the intermediate layer, the Tm3 is 150 to 200°C; and a difference between the Tm3 and the Tm1 (Tm3 - Tm1) and a difference between the Tm3 and the Tm2 (Tm3 - Tm2) are both 10 to 100°C.
Regarding claim 10, Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film of claim 1 as noted above and Ogiwara discloses the terminal resin film comprising the sealant layer being laminated (paragraph [0193]).
The terminal resin film being formed using an inflation molding method is a product-by-process limitation as the structure of the sealant formed by lamination would be the same as the terminal resin film being formed using an inflation molding method.
“Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966) Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 11, Ogiwara discloses a power storage device (electricity storage device; paragraph [0013]) comprising:
a power storage device body (electricity storage device; paragraph [0013]);
metal terminals that are electrically connected to the power storage device body; (tabs; Fig. 7 #42) and a packaging material sandwiching the metal terminals so as to be located between surfaces thereof and accommodating the power storage device body (an exterior packaging material disposed on the electricity storage device covering a part of a tab #42; Fig. 7 #40; paragraph [0013]); wherein the terminal resin film covering part of an outer peripheral surface of the metal terminals and disposed between the metal terminal and the packaging material (an exterior packaging material disposed on the electricity storage device covering a part of a tab #42; paragraph [0013]) and wherein the terminal resin film is disclosed by Ogiwara as noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the tab sealant of Ogiwara does not have the same problems and configuration of the resin film for terminals of the present application as Ogiwara points out that the cause of cracks in the sealant layer of the exterior material for energy storage devices is the fluidity of the sealant layer.
This argument is not persuasive as it is not required for Ogiwara to have the same problems as the present invention in order to be applicable.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicants argue that Ogiwara does not disclose or suggest that the terminal resin film contains an ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin resin having a weight average molecular weight of 3.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraph [0013] of Ogiwara disclose that the sealant layer contains a ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin having a weight average molecular weight of 2.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106--. Also, this range overlaps the claimed range of 3.0 x 105 to 1.0 x 106 for the ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin resin.
Applicants argue that Ogiwara does not anticipate tab sealants as the sealant layer having a propylene-ethylene random copolymer can provide adhesion to the tab without a tab sealant.
This argument is not persuasive as there are other embodiments of Ogiwara that disclose the claimed ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin. A propylene-ethylene random copolymer is a species of polypropylene, but is not the only polypropylene polymer that can be used in Ogiwara. Propylene homopolymer and ethylene-propylene block copolymer can be used and they prevent the bag-shaped exterior material from being broken by heat generated by the power storage device.
Applicants argue that Ogiwara focuses on the exterior material and not the tab sealant.
This argument is not persuasive as in Fig. 7 of Ogiwara the exterior material covers a portion of the tab and is sealed to it. The claims require covering part of an outer peripheral surface in which it does. Also, the structure of the exterior material is the same as the claimed terminal resin film and is capable of functioning as a terminal resin film covering a part of an outer peripheral surface of a metal terminal that is electrically connected to a power storage device body configuring a power storage device.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights