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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 20180102514 A1) in view of Akhtar et al. (US 20140190210 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dai, drawn to packaging material for power storage device, discloses a laminated film (para 49, “packaging material 10” and/or para 184, “packaging material 100"; fig 1-3) comprising: a metallic foil 13/113 (para 49, ”metal foil layer 13” and/or para 184, “barrier layer 113 made of metal foil"; fig 1-3); and a sealant forming layer 15/111 (para 118, “sealant layer 15” constituting “inorganic filler 16” and/or para 184, “sealant layer 111” constituting para 198, “high melting point material 116”; fig 1-3) laminated on the metallic foil 13/113, the sealant forming layer including glass frit 16/116 (para 119, 199) and binder resin 15/111 (resin in layer 15/111, para 111-120, 187-196) mutually joining the glass frit (figs 1-3, para 49-128; 183-1247).
Dai does not disclose 5% weight loss temperature of the binder resin is lower than a glass transition point of glass constituting the glass frit, wherein the 5% weight loss temperature refers to the temperature at which the weight of the binder resin has decreased by 5%, relative to a weight before measurement.
Akhtar discloses a sealant forming layer (para 28 “thickened paste 20”) which includes a glass powder and a binder (para 24, “the binder must be selected to be a thermoplastic”) disposed “directly onto the first substrate” (para 28). Akhtar teaches the binder “has a burnout temperature substantially lower than the glass transition temperature of the glass frit" such that the “thermoplastic burnout products [can] escape between the particles of the glass frit before the glass begins to densify and seal” (para 30).
The 5% weight loss temperature occurs during the binder’s weight loss and prior to complete burnout, the 5% weight loss temperature is necessarily lower than the glass transition temperature of the glass frit (T5% < Burnout < Tg of glass). Thus, the claimed relationship is an inherent result of the binder and glass frit system taught by Akhtar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for sealant forming layer of Dai to incorporate known paste including glass frit and binder taught by Akhtar as doing such provides the sealing material with predictable thermal behavior as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, Akhtar discloses “it is advantageous for the glass frit selected to have a glass transition temperature of at least 300 degrees Centigrade" (para 31). It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Dai discloses a protective layer (para 49/184/220, “substrate layer 11/115”; fig 1-3, said layer serves to “prevent breakage of the barrier layer”), wherein the protective layer, the metallic foil (para 49, ”metal foil layer 13” and/or para 184, “barrier layer 113 made of metal foil"; fig 1-3), and the sealant forming layer (para 118, “sealant layer 15” and/or para 184, “sealant layer 111” fig 1-3)) are included in the laminated film in this order (para 185; fig 1-3).
Dai further discloses the protective layer (substrate layer 115) constitutes “fillers such as silica” for anti-blocking purposes (para 224). There are a finite number of forms of silica- either crystalline or amorphous. Amorphous silica is glass, and thus use of amorphous silica in layer 11/115 would read on the limitation “glass protective layer”.
A skilled artisan would have predictably chosen silica, specifically in amorphous form with reasonable expectation of success for anti-blocking purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to choose amorphous silica for the protective layer, as amorphous silica has a reasonable expectation of success because it’s one of a finite number of predictable solutions as disclosed by Dai above. Accordingly, Dai discloses glass protective layer.
Regarding claim 6, Akhtar discloses “it is advantageous for the glass frit selected to have a glass transition temperature of at least 300 degrees Centigrade" (para 31). It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Dai and Akhtar do not explicitly disclose glass constituting the glass frit is a silicate-based glass, borate-based glass, bismuth silicate-based glass, borosilicate-based glass, vanadium oxide-based glass, or phosphate-based glass.
However, Dai does disclose inorganic filler 116 comprises inorganic particles including silicon oxide (SiO2) and glass (para 198-199). Dai expressly discloses both glass and SiO2 as suitable inorganic materials for the filler dispersed in the sealant. A skilled artisan would have recognized silicate based glass as an obvious selection within the glass/filler materials disclosed by Dai, particularly because SiO2 is the principle glass forming component of silicate glasses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select silicate based glass as the glass constituting the glass frit as suggested by Dai as doing such would have been a predictable selection of known species of glass for expressly contemplated glass filler for its known function as heat resistant filler. MPEP 2144.08.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 20180102514 A1) and Akhtar et al. (US 20140190210 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Booth et al. (WO 2021074560 A1; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Dai and Akhtar do not disclose the glass constituting the glass frit is a vanadium-oxide based glass.
Booth discloses a sealing composition comprising a glass frit, wherein the glass frit “comprises 30 to 65 wt.% V2O5, 5 to 35 wt.% P2O5, 0-30 wt%TeO2” and optionally other oxides (para 9). Booth also discloses using the glass frit as a glass powder in a paste containing an organic medium to form a seal or a bond (para 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for glass constituting glass frit of Dai to be a vanadium-oxide based glass as taught by Booth because it is an alternative to lead-based glass compositions which causes environmental concerns (para 4). Further, the modification would have been a predictable use of a known sealing glass for its known function.
Regarding claim 9, Booth discloses the glass frit “comprises 30 to 65 wt.% V2O5, 5 to 35 wt.% P2O5, 0-30 wt.% TeO2” (para 9). Accordingly, Booth discloses the glass constituting the glass frit comprises 57V205-23TeO2-20P205. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for glass constituting glass frit of Dai to comprise 57V205-23TeO2-20P205 as taught by Booth because it has high mechanical strength and chemical durability (para 65).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 20180102514 A1) and Akhtar et al. (US 20140190210 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahbazi et al (US 2014224417 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dai does not disclose the binder resin is an acrylic resin.
Shahbazi discloses a sealing glass composition comprising glass or ceramic particles and an organic vehicle including an acrylic resin component (para 15-16). Shahbazi also teaches “firing causes the organic vehicle of the sealing glass composition to completely or almost completely burn off, such that only the glass layer remains” (para 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for binder resin of Dai to be an acrylic resin as taught by Shahbazi as doing such provides “necessary viscosity to allow the organic vehicle [binder] to be incorporated into a sealing glass composition” (para 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are
either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takezawa et al. (JP 2002225197 A) discloses a laminated film with anti-blocking agent and resin material. It further discloses anti-blocking agent is glass powder (para 13-13).
Shibata et al. (JP H11246705 A) discloses resin composition having excellent slip properties and transparency. It further discloses specific types of glass that can be used such as soda lime glass (para 9-13).
Sato et al. (WO 2015030144 A1) discloses laminate with protective layer which contains filler component consisting of scratch resistant material such as glass powder (para 27).
Gardner et al. (US 20130062712 A1) discloses hot-melt sealing glass compositions that include one or more glass frits dispersed in a polymeric binder system (para 9).
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 ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
