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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogihara et al. (US 2018/0076421).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Ogihara teaches a battery packaging material (Ogihara para 16) comprising a base material layer (substrate layer) (Ogihara para 50), a sealant layer forming an inner layer (Ogihara para 162) and a barrier layer therebetween (Ogihara para 69). The sealant layer may further comprise one or more layers (Ogihara para 160). Finally, Ogihara teaches that the B resin may be a propylene-butene (propylene-1-butene) random copolymer (Applicant’s A resin) with a melting point of 75 °C and the A resin may be propylene-ethylene random copolymer (Applicant’s B resin) with a melting point of 140 °C (Ogihara para 162, 166, 171, 172, 372, 374). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. Further, because these are the same materials as claimed, they may be considered to be ‘compatible’ with each other.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara et al. (US 2018/0076421), as for claims 1 and 2, above.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 10, Ogihara teaches a battery packaging material as above for claims 1 and 2. Ogihara teaches that the sealant layer may be one or more layers (Ogihara para 160), which would overlap with the claimed three layers, and further teaches that a second sealant layer may be made with a polyolefin with a melting point of 140 °C (Ogihara para 372, 383, Table 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the number of layers taught by Ogihara overlaps with the instantly claimed number of layers and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. 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, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 11, and 12, Ogihara teaches a battery packaging material as above for claims 1 and 2. Ogihara further teaches that the sealant layer is no more than 10 mass% of additives other than the polyolefin resins (Ogihara para 181). Ogihara teaches that polyolefin A (Applicant’s B) may be present in the layer in an amount 60-95 mass% (Ogihara para 170) and polyolefin B (Applicant’s A) is present in an amount of 5-40 mass% (Ogihara para 178). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Ogihara overlaps with the instantly claimed compositional proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. 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, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara as applied to claim 7 above, as evidenced by Naiki et al. (US 2019/0284373).
Regarding claim 8, Ogihara teaches a battery packaging material as above for claim 7. Ogihara further teaches that the random polypropylene may be “Prime Polypro” from Prime Polymer Co. Ltd. (Ogihara para 372). Naiki shows that “Prime Polypro” is a known metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene (Naiki para 39). It therefore follows that the polypropylene utilized by Ogihara is a metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
Conclusion
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 3/10/26