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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamibori et al. (US 2015/0030910; hereinafter “Minamibori”; listed in the IDS filed 18 March 2025), in view of Fujiwara et al. (WO 2020/054789 A1; hereinafter “Fujiwara”; using US PGPub 2021/0308988 for the English translation and citations) and Takahagi et al. (US 2016/0308174; hereinafter “Takahagi”).
Regarding claim 1, Minamibori teaches a packaging material (packaging material 1, see Fig. 1; [0048]) for a power storage device, comprising:
a base material layer (a heat resistant resin stretched film layer 2, see Fig. 1; [0049]);
a barrier layer (metal foil layer 4, see Fig. 1; [0049]) laminated on an inner side of the base material layer (see Fig. 1 and [0049]); and
a sealant layer (a thermoplastic resin layer 3, see Fig. 1; [0049]) laminated an inner side of the barrier layer (metal foil layer 4, see Fig. 1),
wherein the base material layer is formed of a polyamide film (see [0058]),
wherein the base material layer is 2.0% to 5.0% in hot water shrinkage in both a transverse direction (TD) and a machine direction (MD) (2% to 20%, see [0051]-[0059]; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)),
wherein the base material layer is 1.5% or less in a difference between the hot water shrinkage in the transverse direction (TD) and the hot water shrinkage in the machine direction (MD) (see [0059] – ratio of MD/TD is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Minambori is silent to:
wherein the base material layer is 1.5 GPa to 3 GPa in elastic modulus in both the transverse direction (TD) and the machine direction (MD), and
wherein the base material layer is 320 MPa or more in at least one of a breaking strength in the transverse direction (TD) and a breaking strength in the machine direction (MD).
Fujiwara teaches in order to achieve high flexibility (see [0024]), the tensile elastic modulus of the packaging material, wherein the base material can be a polyamide resin (see [0097]), is preferably 1.0 GPa or more and 3.0 GPa or less, but is not limited thereto (see [0031]).
In view of Fujiwara’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the packaging material of Minamibori to include wherein the elastic modulus of the base material is between 1.0 GPa and 3.0 GPa, as taught by Fujiwara, because it allows or the packaging material to achieve high flexibility (see [0024]). Though the combination of Minambori and Fujiwara is silent to specifically teaching that this elastic modulus of the base material is the same for both the transverse direction (TD) and the machine direction (MD), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so in order to achieve high flexibility in both the transverse direction (TD) and the machine direction (MD). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §214.05(I).
The combination of Minamibori and Fujiwara is silent to wherein the base material layer is 320 MPa or more in at least one of a breaking strength in the transverse direction (TD) and a breaking strength in the machine direction (MD).
Takahagi teaches a packaing material wherein the base material can be a polyamide resin (see [0027]). Takahagi teaches the tensile rupture strength of the base material layer (resin film that forms the base material layer) in the machine direction (MD direction) is preferably 200 to 400 MPa, and the tensile rupture strength of the base material layer in a direction (TD) vertical to the MD direction is preferably 220 to 400 MPa (see [0028]). When the tensile rupture strength of the base material layer is in a range as described above, generation of pinholes and cracks during molding of the battery packaging material according to the present invention can be further effectively suppressed to improve moldability (see [0028]).
In view of Takahagi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the packaging material of the combination of Minamibori and Fujiwara to include wherein the base material layer is 320 MPa or more in at least one of a breaking strength in the transverse direction (TD) and a breaking strength in the machine direction (MD), as taught by Takahagi, because the generation of pinholes and cracks during molding of the battery packaging material can be further effectively suppressed to improve moldability. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §214.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Minamibori, Fujiwara, and Takahagi teaches wherein the base material layer is 2.5% to 4.5% in both the hot water shrinkage in the transverse direction (TD) and the hot water shrinkage in the machine direction (MD) (see [0051]-[0059]; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Minamibori, Fujiwara, and Takahagi teaches wherein the base material layer is 1.2% or less in a difference between the hot water shrinkage in the transverse direction (TD) and the hot water shrinkage in the machine direction (MD) (see [0059] – ratio of MD/TD is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Minamibori, Fujiwara, and Takahagi teaches wherein the base material layer is 2.0 GPa to 2.5 GPa in both elastic modulus in the transverse direction (TD) and elastic modulus in the machine direction (MD) (Fuijiwara: [0024], [0037], and [0091] – the elastic modulus is between 1.0 GPa and 3.0 GPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Minamibori, Fujiwara, and Takahagi teaches wherein the base material layer is 400 MPa or less in at least one of a breaking strength in the transverse direction (TD) and a breaking strength in the machine direction (MD) (Takahagi – see [0028] – the tensile rupture strength of the base material layer (resin film that forms the base material layer) in the machine direction (MD direction) is preferably 200 to 400 MPa, and the tensile rupture strength of the base material layer in a direction (TD) vertical to the MD direction is preferably 220 to 400 MPa (see [0028]); In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Minamibori, Fujiwara, and Takahagi teaches a power storage device comprising:
a power storage device main body (Minamibori: see [0048], [0111], and [0158] – a secondary battery would inherently have a main body); and
the packaging material as recited in claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above), wherein the power storage device main body is packaged with the packaging material (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 17 March 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735