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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Patent Publication No. WO 2021/201294 to Kageyama (“Kageyama” citing to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0223620 as its English language equivalent). Kageyama discloses laminate materials for use as packaging materials in batteries/electrical storage devices. Kageyama at Abstract. Comparative Example 2 of Kageyama includes an aluminum foil barrier layer with a nylon base layer laminated to one side of the aluminum foil. On the other side of the aluminum foil a dual-film heat sealing layer is provided, with a first film of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene and an innermost layer of random polypropylene. Id. at paragraph [0140]. Polypropylene is a polyolefin. Id. at paragraph [0104]. The innermost heat sealing layer surface of the laminate of Kageyama’s Comparative Example 2 has a Martens hardness of 24.4 N/mm2 as obtained with a Vickers indenter. Id. at Table 1 and paragraph [0144]. Martens hardness is a universal hardness, the value of which can be accurately obtained with either a Vickers indenter or a Berkovitch indenter. Accordingly, the disclosure in Kageyama that its Comparative Example 2 has a Martens hardness of 24.4 N/mm2 as measured with a Vickers indenter is found to establish that the Comparative Example 2 would inherently have a Martens hardness of 24.4N/mm2 when measured with a Berkovitch indenter. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,122,183 at col 7, line 62 to col. 8, line 3 and U.S. Patent No. 9,152,109 at paragraph [0120]..
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama. Kageyama is applied as described above. First addressing claims 4 and 5, like comparative Example 2 of Kageyama, its inventive samples include a metal foil barrier layer (3) with a base layer (1) corresponding to the recited substrate layer formed on its outer surface and polyolefin-based heat-sealable layer (4) corresponding to the recited heat-fusible resin layer on its inner surface of the metal foil. The inner surface preferable has a Martens hardness of 25 N/mm2 or higher, a range sharing an endpoint of the recited range which thereby renders the recited range obvious. Id. at paragraphs [0043 and [0159]. These laminate material are used to form the outer packaging for a battery/electrical storage device by deep-drawing the laminate to mold the laminate to a shape for receiving the battery. Id. at paragraph [0136].
Further regarding claim 3, Kageyama discloses including a known slipping agent on the surface of the heat sealing layer in order to improve moldability, with known amide-based slipping agents being preferred. Id. at paragraphs [0110]-[0112]. Kageyama discloses that fatty-acid based amide is a known amide-based slipping agent useful in its invention, and thus its choice for use on the heat sealing layer is considered to be nothing more than the obvious use of a known material for its intended purpose. Id. at paragraph [0066]. Kageyama does not disclose the amount of slipping agent to include in a weight-to-weight basis, instead disclosing a weight-to-surface area amount. To the extent the amount disclosed in Kageyama does not inherently correspond to the recited weight-to-weight amount, the Office finds that arriving at the recited amount is nothing more than the product of routine experimentation to achieve a desired moldability of the laminate.
Similarly, regarding claim 2, although Kageyama does not disclose a coefficient of dynamic friction of its heat sealing layer, it does disclose incorporating a slipping agent in this layer to reduce friction and improve moldability. Thus, the Office finds that to the extent the coefficient of dynamic friction of its heat sealing layer doesn’t inherently fall within the recited range, the range amounts to nothing more than the product of routine experimentation to arrive at a material having a desired moldability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727