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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/18/2026 have been entered. These are clarifying amendments which do not affect the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-9 filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the primary reference of record (Guo) failing to inherently meet the claimed properties of the heat-sealable resin layer have been fully considered and are persuasive. As explained by Applicant in the Remarks (and further evidenced by relevant art cited below), “polypropylene” of Guo is not necessarily the same composition as the polypropylene in “In the heat-sealable resin layer, the amount of the low-molecular-weight component in the polypropylene was adjusted to adjust the value (T2/T1)…” (per instant specification [0180]), to meet the instantly claimed T2/T1 ratio when subjected to the claimed measurements in the claimed environment. Thus, the polypropylene of Guo (which fails to teach toward adjusting an amount of a of a low-molecular-weight component), does not inherently meet the claimed T2/T1 ratio.
No arguments were presented against the Douke secondary reference; however, Examiner notes that Douke teaches in [0388] that different types of polypropylene exhibit different softening and melting points, which further supports Applicant remarks that “polypropylene” in general does not anticipate the claimed properties. However, Douke is still applicable as a teaching reference as used in obviousness-type Double Patenting rejections made below.
The 35 USC 102/103 rejections of 12/18/2025 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,911 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 11 of the reference patent ‘911 recites the following:
“A battery packaging material comprising a laminate in which, at least, a polyester film layer, an aluminum alloy foil layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer are laminated in this order,”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “A battery packaging material comprising: a laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order,” – since “a polyester film layer” maps to “a base material layer” and “an aluminum alloy foil layer” maps to “a barrier layer”)
(which reads on instant claim 17 limitation of: “wherein the barrier layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of an aluminum alloy foil …”)
“wherein a thickness of the polyester film layer is 23 μm or more and 27 μm or less,”
(which reads on instant claim 10 limitation of: “the base material layer having a thickness of 50 μm or less.” – since the range “23 μm or more and 27 μm or less” falls within “50 μm or less” and obviates such per MPEP 2144.05 I)
“a thickness of the aluminum alloy foil layer is 27 μm or more and 43 μm or less,”
(which reads on instant claim 11 limitation of: “the barrier layer having a thickness of 100 μm or less.” – since the range “27 μm or more and 43 μm or less” falls within “100 μm or less” and obviates such per MPEP 2144.05 I)
“a thickness of the heat-sealable resin layer is 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less”
(which reads on instant claim 4 limitation of: “wherein the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 10 μm or more.” – since “70 μm or more and 100 μm or less” range falls within and obviates the “10 μm or more” range; see MPEP 2144.05 I)
“wherein a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 are measured by the following method, and a value obtained by dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.55 or more:”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “when a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 are measured using the following methods, a value obtained by dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:” – since the range of “0.55 or more” encompasses and obviates the range of “0.60 or more” per MPEP 2144.05 I)
“(measurement of temperature difference T1)
the temperature difference T1 between an extrapolation melting onset temperature and an extrapolation melting termination temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”)
and
“(measurement of temperature difference T2)
the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolyte which is a solution in which a concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate is 1 mol/l and a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate is 1:1:1, and then the heat-sealable resin is dried in an environment of a temperature of 85° C.; and the temperature difference T2 between the extrapolation melting onset temperature and the extrapolation melting termination temperature of the melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “an environment at a temperature of 85°C, the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution, which is a solution having a lithium hexafluorophosphate concentration of 1 mol/l, and a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of 1:1:1, and then dried, and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”)
Claim 12 of the reference patent ‘911 recites the following:
“A battery comprising a battery element comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, the battery element being stored in a package comprising the battery packaging material according to claim 11.”
(which reads on instant claim 21 limitations of: “A battery comprising a battery element comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, the battery element being housed in a package formed of the battery packaging material according to claim 1.”)
Claim 14 of the reference patent ‘911 recites the following:
“A method for manufacturing the battery packaging material according to claim 11, comprising a step of laminating at least, the polyester film layer, the aluminum alloy foil layer, and the heat-sealable resin layer in this order to obtain the laminate.”
(which reads on instant claim 22 limitations of: “A method for producing a battery packaging material, the method comprising: obtaining a laminate by laminating at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order …” [including all repeated limitations corresponding to those in instant claim 1 for the “laminate”; met by reference claim 11 as mapped above, which reference claim 14 depends upon and encompasses]).
Claim 1 and 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 (including base claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 12,592,436 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the reference patent ‘436 recites the following:
“A battery packaging material comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer, an aluminum alloy foil layer, an adhesive layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order, … ”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “A battery packaging material comprising: a laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order,” – since “an aluminum alloy foil layer” maps to “a barrier layer”)
(which reads on instant claim 17 limitation of: “wherein the barrier layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of an aluminum alloy foil …”)
Claim 4 of the reference patent ‘436 recites the following:
“The battery packaging material according to claim 1, wherein a value determined by dividing a temperature difference T2 by a temperature difference T1 is 0.55 or more wherein the temperature difference T1 and the temperature difference T2 are measured by a method wherein:”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “when a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 are measured using the following methods, a value obtained by dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:” – since the range of “0.55 or more” encompasses and obviates the range of “0.60 or more” per MPEP 2144.05 I)
“(Measurement of Temperature Difference T1) the temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”)
and
“(Measurement of Temperature Difference T2) the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution having a concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate of 1 mol/l and a volume ratio between ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of 1:1:1 and is dried in an environment at a temperature of 85° C., and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after being dried is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “an environment at a temperature of 85°C, the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution, which is a solution having a lithium hexafluorophosphate concentration of 1 mol/l, and a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of 1:1:1, and then dried, and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”)
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 (including base claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,723 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the reference patent ‘723 recites the following:
“A power storage device outer packaging material which comprises a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order,”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “A battery packaging material comprising: a laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order,”)
“the heat-sealable resin layer comprising a resin containing a polyolefin backbone,”
(which reads on instant claim 12 limitation of: “wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is formed of a resin containing a polyolefin backbone.”)
(which reads on instant claim 13 limitation of: “wherein the heat-sealable resin layer contains at least one resin selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin …”)
“the heat-sealable resin layer including a single layer or multiple layers, …”
(which reads on instant claim 16 limitation of: “wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is formed of two or more layers composed of the same or different resins.”)
Claim 10 of the reference patent ‘723 recites the following:
“…the heat-sealable resin layer includes a first heat-sealable resin layer forming a surface of the laminate, and a value obtained by measuring a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 in the first heat-sealable resin layer by the following method and dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “when a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 are measured using the following methods, a value obtained by dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:”)
“(measurement of temperature difference T1)
the temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature in the melting peak temperature of the first heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”)
and
“(measurement of temperature difference T2)
the first heat-sealable resin layer is left to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution in which the concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate is 1 mol/l and the volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate is 1:1:1 and the resin is then sufficiently dried in an environment at a temperature of 85° C., and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature in the melting peak temperature of the first heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “an environment at a temperature of 85°C, the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution, which is a solution having a lithium hexafluorophosphate concentration of 1 mol/l, and a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of 1:1:1, and then dried, and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”)
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 (including base claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,951 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the reference patent ‘951 recites the following:
“A power storage device outer packaging material which comprises a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “A battery packaging material comprising: a laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order,”)
“the heat-sealable resin layer including a single layer or multiple layers …”
(which reads on instant claim 16 limitation of: “wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is formed of two or more layers composed of the same or different resins.”)
Claim 10 of the reference patent ‘951 recites the following:
“wherein the heat-sealable resin layer includes the first heat-sealable resin layer forming a surface of the laminate, and a value obtained by measuring a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 in the first heat-sealable resin layer by the following method and dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “when a temperature difference T1 and a temperature difference T2 are measured using the following methods, a value obtained by dividing the temperature difference T2 by the temperature difference T1 is 0.60 or more:”)
“(measurement of temperature difference T1)
the temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature in the melting peak temperature of the first heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “temperature difference T1 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer is measured by differential scanning calorimetry;”)
and
“(measurement of temperature difference T2)
the first heat-sealable resin layer is left to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution in which the concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate is 1 mol/l and the volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate is 1:1:1 and the resin is then sufficiently dried in an environment at a temperature of 85° C., and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting start temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature in the melting peak temperature of the first heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”
(which reads on instant claim 1 limitation of: “an environment at a temperature of 85°C, the heat-sealable resin layer is allowed to stand for 72 hours in an electrolytic solution, which is a solution having a lithium hexafluorophosphate concentration of 1 mol/l, and a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of 1:1:1, and then dried, and the temperature difference T2 between an extrapolated melting onset temperature and an extrapolated melting end temperature of a melting peak temperature of the heat-sealable resin layer after drying is measured by differential scanning calorimetry.”)
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of: claim 1 of U.S. 11,450,911 B2; claim 4 of U.S. 12,592,436 B2; claim 10 of U.S. 12,472,723 B2; claim 10 of U.S. 12,064,951 B2 – each as cited and applied in the Double Patenting rejections of instant claim 1 above – in view of Suzuta et al. (US 20130209868 A1) (the below is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection with a secondary reference).
Suzuta is analogous in the art to each of the above-cited U.S. reference patents in the art of laminated battery exterior material (see Suzuta abstract). Suzuta teaches that the base material layer may consist of a single layer or a laminated film obtained by laminating two or more layers of films, and that a laminated film consisting of a biaxially oriented polyester film and a biaxially oriented polyamide film is preferable, and a laminated film obtained by laminating a biaxially oriented polyester film and biaxially oriented polyamide film in that order when viewed from the outside is more preferable (Suzuta [0325]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a laminate of “a biaxially oriented polyester film and biaxially oriented polyamide film in that order” as taught/motivated toward by Suzuta (see also MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 I B regarding selection of / substitution of a known suitable material) for the base material, to modify the base material layer of each of the above-cited U.S. reference patents, thus rendering obvious the limitation of instant claim 5: “wherein the base material layer comprises, in order from a side opposite to the barrier layer, a laminate of a polyester film and a polyamide film, a laminate of a polyester film and a polyester film, a laminate of a polyamide film and a polyamide film, or a laminate of a polyamide film and a polyester film.”
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of: claim 1 of U.S. 11,450,911 B2; claim 4 of U.S. 12,592,436 B2; claim 10 of U.S. 12,472,723 B2; claim 10 of U.S. 12,064,951 B2 – each as cited and applied in the Double Patenting rejections of instant claim 1 above – in view of Douke et al (US 20150372263 A1, as cited in the previous rejection of record) (the below is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection with a secondary reference).
Douke is analogous in the art of laminated battery packages, teaching battery packaging material which is made of a laminate including, as the essentials, a base material layer, a metal layer and a sealant layer in this order (Douke abstract). Douke teaches toward the friction of the base material layer 1 being reduced for improving moldability, and that a method to reduce the friction of the base layer is to include a slipping agent (Douke [0087]). A combination of two slipping agents can be used, and a thin film layer of a slipping agent can be formed by precipitating a slipping agent on the surface of the base material layer 1 by bleeding-out to form a thin layer, or depositing a slipping agent on the base material layer 1 (Douke [0089]) (i.e., as a coating layer on the outer surface of the base layer). Slipping agent examples include fatty acid amides such as erucic acid amide, stearic acid amide, behenic acid amide, ethylene bis-oleic acid amide and ethylene bis-stearic acid amide (Douke [0089]). Douke [0123] teaches that a slipping agent can also be present in the sealant layer in a preferably amount of 0.01 to 0.2% or more preferably 0.05 to 0.15% by mass, also for the goal of improving the moldability and insulation quality of the battery packaging material.
Therefore, regarding instant claim 6, claim 7, claim 8, and claim 20 limitations of:
two or more lubricants present on a surface of the base material layer and/or inside the base material layer
at least two lubricants present on the surface of the base material layer and/or inside the base material layer, the at least two lubricants being selected from the group consisting of saturated fatty acid amides, unsaturated fatty acid amides, substituted amides, methylol amides, saturated fatty acid bis-amides, unsaturated fatty acid bis-amides, fatty acid ester amides, and aromatic bis-amides
a lubricant present on a surface of the base material layer in an amount of 3 mg/m2 or more
a surface coating layer on a side of the base material layer opposite to the barrier layer
it would have been obvious in view of the above-cited Douke teachings for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base layer of each of the above-cited U.S. reference patents to include a lubricant/slipping agent coated on its outer surface (opposite the barrier layer) as taught by Douke with the motivation of reducing friction to improve moldability. As the lubricant, it would have been obvious to select suitable materials taught by Douke such as fatty acid amides and bis-amides (see MPEP 2144.07). Further, from the teaching of Douke [0123], the amount of lubricant/slipping agent included in a given layer is a result-effective variable which – in relatively small amounts – positively affects the improvement of the moldability and insulation quality of the resultant battery packaging material. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize such additive amount of lubricant on the base layer to achieve the optimal moldability and insulation quality (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Douke further teaches toward including a slipping agent in the sealant layer so that moldability of the battery packaging material can be improved by preventing cracks on the interface of the sealant layer (Douke [0122]). Douke [0123] teaches that content of the slipping agent in the sealant layer 4 is not particularly limited, and is preferably about 0.01 to 0.2% by mass, more preferably about 0.05 to 0.15% by mass for improving the moldability and insulation quality of the battery packaging material.
Therefore, regarding claim 9, claim 18, and claim 19, limitations of:
a lubricant present on a surface of the heat-sealable resin layer in an amount of 3 mg/m2 or more
two or more lubricants present on the surface of the heat-sealable resin layer and/or inside the heat-sealable resin layer
at least two lubricants present on the surface of the heat-sealable resin layer and/or inside the heat-sealable resin layer, the at least two lubricants being selected from the group consisting of saturated fatty acid amides, unsaturated fatty acid amides, substituted amides, methylol amides, saturated fatty acid bis-amides, unsaturated fatty acid bis-amides, fatty acid ester amides, and aromatic bis-amides
it would have been further obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sealable resin layer of each of the above-cited U.S. reference patents to include a lubricant/slipping agent as taught by Douke in order to prevent cracks thereon and improve the moldability and insulation quality of the battery packaging material. Per Douke [0123], the amount of lubricant/slipping agent included in the heat-sealable resin layer is a result-effective variable which – in relatively small amounts – positively affects the improvement of the moldability and insulation quality of the resultant battery packaging material. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize such additive amount of lubricant on the base layer to achieve the optimal moldability and insulation quality (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Douke further teaches their inventive battery packaging laminate material (as cited above) in which:
the heat-sealable resin layer is formed using a blend polymer obtained by combining two or more resins (resins that form the sealant layer 4 may be used in combination of two or more thereof, Douke [0105]).
the heat-sealable resin layer is formed using a blend polymer obtained by combining two or more resins (resins that form the sealant layer 4 may be used in combination of two or more thereof, Douke [0105]), at least one of the two or more resins being selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin, a cyclic polyolefin, an acid-modified polyolefin, and an acid-modified cyclic polyolefin (examples thereof include acid-modified polyolefins, and when the adhesive layer 5 or insulating layer 6 described later is present, additionally a polyolefin, a modified cyclic polyolefin; Douke [0105]).
Douke teaches that in the embodiment in which the sealant layer includes a first sealant layer which is situated on the metal layer side and which contains an acid-modified polyolefin, and a second sealant layer which is laminated on the first sealant layer and situated at the innermost layer and which contains a polyolefin (Douke [0127]), the battery packaging material is configured to ensure that when the battery is heated to a certain set temperature (fixed between 100° C and 160° C), the packaging material is not unsealed until the ambient temperature reaches the set temperature after which the packaging material is gently but quickly unsealed (Douke [0126]) due to the melting temperature properties of the various resin layers therein (Douke [0128-0132]) to therefore increase battery safety by suppressing excessive expansion of the battery packaging material, uncontrollable battery reaction, firing and the like (Douke [0001, 0319]).
Therefore, regarding instant claim 14 and claim 15 limitations of:
the heat-sealable resin layer is formed using a blend polymer obtained by combining two or more resins
the heat-sealable resin layer is formed using a blend polymer obtained by combining two or more resins, at least one of the two or more resins being selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin, a cyclic polyolefin, an acid-modified polyolefin, and an acid-modified cyclic polyolefin
it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polyolefin heat sealing layer of each of the above-cited U.S. reference patents to include the bi-layer sealant of a first sealant layer of acid-modified polyolefin and a second sealant layer of polyolefin as taught by Douke with the motivation of achieving desired melting temperatures and increased battery safety via the ability to quickly and gently release gas from inside the battery. See also MPEP 2143 I B and 2144.07 regarding obviousness of substitution/selection of known suitable/predictable materials.
Claims 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,911 B2 as applied to the double patenting rejection of instant claim 22 above, in view of Douke et al (US 20150372263 A1, as cited in the previous rejection of record) (the below is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection with a secondary reference).
Douke is analogous in the art of laminated battery packages, teaching battery packaging material which is made of a laminate including, as the essentials, a base material layer, a metal layer and a sealant layer in this order (Douke abstract). Douke teaches exemplary lamination methods for obtaining laminate in which layers each having a predetermined composition are laminated (Douke [0309]) such as a thermal lamination method or a co-extrusion method, among others, to arrive at the laminate of: base layer/adhesive layer/metal barrier layer/adhesive layer/heat-sealable sealant layer (Douke [0310, 0315] and Fig. 2).
Simple substitution and use of known techniques support a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the adhesive layers in the packaging laminate and use the method taught by Douke, applying such to the ‘911 reference patent to expectedly yield a suitable packaging laminate which renders obvious the instant claim 23 limitation of: “wherein: in obtaining the laminate by laminating, the laminating includes laminating an adhesive layer between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable resin layer, and the adhesive layer and the heat-sealable resin layer are formed using a co-extrusion lamination method, a thermal lamination method, a method in which an adhesive for forming the adhesive layer is laminated on the barrier layer and then the heat-sealable resin layer formed into a sheet in advance is laminated on the adhesive layer using a thermal lamination method, or a sandwich lamination method.”
In the battery packaging laminate of Douke, Douke further teaches toward: the heat-sealable resin layer is formed of two or more layers (sealant layer 4 may be formed of a plurality of layers, Douke [0104]) composed of the same or different resins (resins that form the sealant layer 4 may be used alone, or may be used in combination of two or more thereof, Douke [0105]). Douke teaches that in the embodiment in which the sealant layer includes a first sealant layer which is situated on the metal layer side and which contains an acid-modified polyolefin, and a second sealant layer which is laminated on the first sealant layer and situated at the innermost layer and which contains a polyolefin (Douke [0127]), the battery packaging material is configured to ensure that when the battery is heated to a certain set temperature (fixed between 100° C and 160° C), the packaging material is not unsealed until the ambient temperature reaches the set temperature after which the packaging material is gently but quickly unsealed (Douke [0126]) due to the melting temperature properties of the various resin layers therein (Douke [0128-0132]) to therefore increase battery safety by suppressing excessive expansion of the battery packaging material, uncontrollable battery reaction, firing and the like (Douke [0001, 0319]).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polyolefin heat sealing layer of the ‘911 reference patent with the bi-layer sealant of a first sealant layer of acid-modified polyolefin and a second sealant layer of polyolefin as taught by Douke with the motivation of achieving desired melting temperatures and increased battery safety via the ability to quickly and gently release gas from inside the battery. Thus, the instant claim 24 limitation of “the heat-sealable resin layer is formed of two or more layers composed of the same or different resins” is rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as noted above in response to arguments, the “polypropylene” of Guo is not necessarily the same composition as the polypropylene in “In the heat-sealable resin layer, the amount of the low-molecular-weight component in the polypropylene was adjusted to adjust the value (T2/T1)…” (per instant specification [0180]). As such, Guo’s heat-sealing layer made of polypropylene would not expectedly exhibit the same inherent melting temperature behavior to thus anticipate the instantly claimed |T2-T1| nor expectedly exhibit the same inherent sealing strength measurement when subjected to the same testing procedure. An updated thorough search of the prior art did not reveal closer prior art to meet or obviate the limitations of instant claims 2 or 3.
Relevant Art
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamashita et al. (US 20080241663 A1) teaches a laminate packaging material for electrochemical cell (Figs. 1 and 12) including a thermally adhesive resin layer is configured of a resin having a propylene based elastomer resin in a propylene based resin (abstract). Yamashita teaches the propylene based elastomer resin a melting point in the range of from 130 to 170° C, and preferably in the range of from 130 to 150° C ([0075]). Yamashita further teaches in case of heat sealing a polypropylene layer, it is necessary to apply heat of a temperature in the vicinity of the melting point of the polypropylene layer (about 190° C); however, by providing a melt extruded polypropylene layer having a melting point of from 120 to 150° C. on the surface of the polypropylene layer, the heat sealing can be achieved at a temperature lower than the melting point of the unstretched polypropylene layer ([0091]). Yamashita also teaches in [0055, 0125] toward different modified olefins / polypropylene materials having different softening points (which can read on melt onset temperatures). Thus, Yamashita teaches toward different modifications to polypropylene yielding different melting temperature ranges, but fails to teach toward a polypropylene or other material exhibiting the T1, T2 melting behaviors before/after soaking in electrolyte as instantly claimed.
Palmetto Industries ("Polypropylene Melting Point & PP Softening Temperature Explained", 2025, <https://www.palmetto-industries.com/polypropylene-melting-point/>) teaches the PP melting point varies slightly across grades such as homopolymer, copolymer, and impact-modified grades (pg. 2,pg. 3); modifiers like filler, stabilizer, and additive can raise or lower the melting point, depending on specific requirements such as durability, chemical resistance, and recycling needs (pg. 3); actual temperature at which polypropylene melts can vary depending on several internal and external factors, including structure, additives, and even processing techniques (pg. 3); molecular weight and distribution affects melting point of PP (pg. 4); and teaches different softening and melting points for different PP types (table on pg. 6).
Alexandridis et al. ("Polypropylene Dissolution Kinetics: Effects of Solvent, Temperature, and Particle Size.", Polymers 2025, 17, 3213. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17233213) provides evidence that solvent, temperature, and particle size affect different phenomena involved in the dissolution of semicrystalline polypropylene (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights