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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2023 and 09/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the sealant layer”, the barrier layer” and “the external resin layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20190075713 A) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2017/0092904 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a polypropylene based multi-layer film comprising (Abstract- polypropylene based film for cell pouch):
A skin layer including (a) a propylene based binary copolymer ([38-41] first skin layer can be made of an isotactic polypropylene resin and can include an isotactic polypropylene-ethylene random copolymer or block copolymer), (f) a modified polyolefin ([51-54] first skin layer may further contains an additive such as an elastomer wherein the elastomer can be a thermoplastic elastomer such as a propylene alpha olefin elastomer), and (e) an anti-blocking agent ([51-52] the first skin layer can include an anti-blocking agent);
A core layer including (b1) an ethylene propylene block copolymer ([104] core layer contains a syndiotactic polypropylene-ethylene block copolymer); and
A seal layer including (a) a propylene-based binary copolymer ([11,15,41] second skin layer can include an isotactic polypropylene resin that can be an isotactic polypropylene-ethylene random copolymer), (b2) an ethylene propylene block copolymer ([41] isotactic polypropylene resin may include one or more of a isotactic polypropylene-ethylene random copolymer and an isotactic polypropylene-ethylene block copolymer thus the second skin layer can also have an ethylene propylene block copolymer that reads as the b2 material), (d) a slip agent ([86] second skin layer 30 may have an additive such as a slip agent), and (e) an anti-blocking agent ([86] second skin layer 30 may have an additive such as an anti-blocking agent).
Han discloses wherein the core layer can include an elastomer of various propylene materials, however, is silent with respect to the core layer comprising (c) an amorphous propylene rubber.
Nakajima discloses a sealant film for packaging material for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cell housing materials. Nakajima discloses a sealant film being made of a plurality of layers and wherein one layer comprises a propylene elastomer material ([0023-0028]) wherein the elastomer material can be an ethylene-propylene rubber ([0035,0082-0083,0186-0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the propylene elastomer material of the core layer of Han for the ethylene-propylene rubber elastomer material taught by Nakajima as a simple substitution of a known material having a known intended use of battery housing sealant materials. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1.The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Han further teaches wherein:
The skin layer comprises (a) the propylene-based binary copolymer in an amount of 80 parts by weight to 99 parts by weight ([50] first skin layer may be 60-90 parts by weight of isotactic polypropylene resin), (f) the modified polyolefin in an amount of 1 part by weight to 20 parts by weight ([54-56] additive can be 10 to 40 parts by weight and thus the elastomer can be within the claimed range, and (e) the anti-blocking agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 1 part by weight ([54-56] elastomer anti-blocking and slip agents can be provided between 10-40 parts by weight of the skin layer);
the core layer comprises (b1) the ethylene propylene block copolymer in an amount of 50 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight (Han [104] ethylene propylene block copolymer can be 50 parts by weight), and (c) the amorphous propylene rubber in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight (Han [104] elastomer can be 49 parts by weight and thus the elastomer rubber of Nakajima used within the modification of claim 1 can be used at a parts by weight of 49, see modification of claim 1); and
the seal layer comprises (a) the propylene-based binary copolymer in an amount of 20 parts by weight to 60 parts by weight, (b2) the ethylene propylene block copolymer in an amount of 40 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight ([85] second skin layer may include 80-90 parts by weight of the isotactic polypropylene resin; [41] resin can be two ore more materials and thus (a) can be used at 45 parts by weight while (b2) can be used at 53 parts by weight), (d) the slip agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 1.0 part by weight, and (e) the anti-blocking agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 1.0 part by weight (Han discloses a range for the anti-blocking and slip additives to be between 5-10 parts by weight [85-86]).
While the anti-blocking agent and slip agent are taught to be provided in an amount of 5-10 parts by mass, these are optional additives that can be used or not used within the skin layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of the slip agent and anti-block agents to be 1 part by weight or less within the polypropylene multilayer skin layer films as the anti-block and slip agents are optional additives than can be provided and thus a skilled artisan can apply these additivities at a small amount such as 1 part by mass within their respective layers. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Han teaches the multilayer film of claim 1. Han is silent with respect to a friction coefficient, peel strength and thermal adhesion strength, however, these are deemed to be an inherent characteristics and properties of the materials that make up the three layers in the multilayer as the multilayer film as a whole would be expected to function and perform similarly when undergoing the method for measuring peel strength and thermal adhesion strength within the claim.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the friction coefficient, peel strength and thermal adhesion strength, these properties/testing results are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the multilayer film disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the multilayer film taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, modified Han inherently teaches the friction coefficient, peel strength and thermal adhesion strength. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Han discloses a cell pouch comprising the sealant layer formed of the film of claim 1 (Figures 1-2; [37] polypropylene films is used for the sealant layer of the cell pouch and wherein the second skin layer 30 contacts the barrier layer of the cell pouch),
The barrier layer formed on the sealant layer (Figures 1-2; [0037]),
The external resin layer formed on the barrier layer (Figures 1-2; [4] outer layer formed on the barrier layer).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20190075713 A) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2017/0092904 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Abhari et al. (US 2004/0220320 A1), Rhee et al. (US 2010/0081755 A1) and Meka et al. (US 6,399,707 B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Han further teaches wherein:
(d) the slip agent is an amide-based slip agent ([53] slip agent can contain an erucamide);
(e) the anti-blocking agent is a spherical silica ([52] anti-blocking agent can be silica and thus can be a spherical silica when added in particles as an additive).
Han is silent with respect to wherein the modified polyolefin is grafted with maleic anhydride in an amount of 1-10 wt %.
Abhari discloses a functionalized olefine polymer that is analogous with the instant invention as being related to polyolefin polymers. Abhari discloses wherein a polyolefin is grafted with maleic anhydride between 0.001-50 wt% based on the POA (abstract; [0099], [0090-0091, 0096]) to functionalized the olefin polymer with the properties of the maleic anhydride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the polyolefin material of Han to include by grafting a maleic anhydride onto the polyolefin in an amount of 0.001-50 wt% based on the polyolefin as taught by Abhari in order to functionalize the polyolefin material. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Han is silent with respect to the amorphous propylene rubber comprises ethylene in an amount of 10-60 wt%.
Meka discloses a propylene copolymer and is related to the propylene film of the instant invention. Meka discloses an amorphous ethylene propylene rubber having an ethylene content less than 50 wt% ethylene to help with the melt flow of the copolymer (Col. 1 lines 15-35; Col. 4 lines 41-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the amorphous ethylene propylene rubber taught by Nakajima to be an amorphous ethylene propylene rubber having an ethylene content of around 50 wt% in order to help with the melt flow of the copolymer as taught by Meka. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Han is silent with respect to the copolymer materials comprising an ethylene content from 2-10 wt%.
Rhee discloses a method for preparing a random copolymer with an enhanced ethylene content and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to copolymers. Rhee discloses wherein a polypropylene film comprises a high ethylene content within an ethylene/propylene random copolymer comprising a ethylene content from about 7.2-15% ethylene by weight and about 1.5 weight% of the invention polymer ([0006,0009, 0019, 0028,0033]) in order to provide unique properties to the polymer and benefits of the ethylene ([0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the ethylene content within the ethylene-propylene block copolymers to have an ethylene content around 7-15% as taught by Rhee in order to provide unique properties of the ethylene material to the block copolymer as taught by Rhee. The resulting modification would render obvious or are merely close to the claimed ranges of 2-6.5%, 2-6%, and 6-10% for the copolymer materials (a), (b1) and (b2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20190075713 A), Nakajima et al. (US 2017/0092904 A1), Abhari et al. (US 2004/0220320 A1) Rhee et al. (US 2010/0081755 A1) and Meka et al. (US 6,399,707 B1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2008/0160276 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Han discloses wherein the anti-blocking agent comprises silica and does not contain water and thus the water content would be less than 0.5 wt% ([52]). Han further discloses wherein the slip agent can be a erucicamide, however, is silent with respect to multiple amides having 14-22 carbon atoms.
Nakajima discloses a sealant film for packaging material for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cell housing materials. Nakajima further discloses wherein the slip agent can contain multiple different amides such as erucicamide and stearic acid amide ([0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use multiple amides for the slip agent such as erucicamide and stearic acid amide as taught by Nakajima as multiple slip agents can be used as a selection of known materials for a known intended use. Erucicamide contains 22 carbon and stearic acid amide contains 18 carbons and thus would read on the slip agent having 14-22 carbon atoms. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Han discloses an anti-blocking agent, however, is silent with respect to the anti-blocking against having an average particle diameter of 1.5-3.0 micrometers, and the bulk density of the particles is 0.8-1 g/cm3.
Inoue discloses a method producing porous silica based particles. Inoue discloses wherein silica based particles can have an average particle diameter between 1-15 micrometers and a compacted bulk density between 0.2-0.76 g/cm3 ([0010,0035]) to provide superior silica based particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the silica particles used within Han to have an average diameter of 1-15 micrometers and a compacted bulk density between 0.2-0.76 g/cm3 as taught by Inoue for the anti-blocking agent within Han to contain superior silica particles used as the anti-blocking agent. While, the bulk density discloses a range outside that of the claimed invention, a bulk density of 0.76 g/cm3 as taught by Inoue is deemed to be merely close to the claimed 0.8-1 g/cm3 range claimed and thus would read on the claimed invention absent criticality or unexpected results.
Modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3 except the melt index of the propylene based binary copolymer, ethylene propylene block copolymer, the ethylene propylene block copolymer, and the amorphous propylene rubber, however, these properties appear to be based on the materials and chemical composition of the compounds and thus are considered to be inherent based on the structure of claim 2. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the melt index, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the propylene based binary copolymer, ethylene propylene block copolymer, the ethylene propylene block copolymer, and the amorphous propylene rubber disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the propylene based binary copolymer, ethylene propylene block copolymer, the ethylene propylene block copolymer, and the amorphous propylene rubber taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 2, the prior art inherently teaches the melt Index. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (KR 20180092814 A)-discloses a lead sealant film and secondary batteries using the same having a polypropylene multilayer film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728