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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement mailed has been reconsidered and is withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been fully examined herein.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the heat-sealable resin layers" in lines 9-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple heat-sealable resin layers in the claim as lines 4-6 the laminate may only contain one heat sealable resin layer as indicated by the language of the exterior material comprising a heat-sealable resin layer. It is understood the laminate includes at least a base material, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer however the highlighted language appears to require more than one heat sealable resin layers to be present and therefore contradicts the embodiment wherein the laminate only contains only one heat-sealable layer.
Independent claims 6 and 7 have the same discrepancy. All other claims are dependent on either claim 1, 6 or 7.
For examination purposes the claim has been interpreted broadly meaning the adhesive layer can be located anywhere within the laminate.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by YASUDA et al, US 2019/0270237 A1.
YASUDA et al. teach a battery packing material made from a laminate comprising a barrier layer, a heat-sealable resin layer 4 positioned on one surface side of the barrier layer and a polyester film positioned on the other side of the barrier layer 3 (abstract). The laminate meets the present limitations for the exterior material. YASUDA et al. also teaches the base material layer 1 can be formed of a polyester film having a multilayer structure including an adhesive agent 2 ([0048]-[0049]) and have a total thickness preferably 50 mm or less. The adhesive agent can be in layer form, comprising an adhesive component such as polyester based resins include polyolefin based resins with a preferred thickness of 2 to 5 mm ([0053]-[0056). The multilayer polyester layer containing the polyester meets the limitations of the same. It is noted an additional adhesive layer 5 is also taught [0090]-[0100]). It doesn’t appear YASUDA et al. states the requirement the at least one resin layer L had a melting peak temperature lower by 5°C or more than the heat-sealable resin layer of the exterior material however it is noted YASUDA et al. exemplifies polyolefin based resins [0055] which are also exemplified at paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in the specification as originally filed. Since YASUDA et al. teach substantially the same resin in the adhesive layer, as addressed above, the claimed characteristic or property is expected to be necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. 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). The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2112.01 I & II.
Specifically regarding the method limitations present in the product claims and the claimed method itself, YASUDA et al. teaches a method for producing the adhesive film, battery packaging material is descried in detail at paragraphs [0107]-[0111] wherein a laminate is formed by subjecting to a hot roll contact -type, hot air-type, or near- or far-infrared-type heating treatment in order to strengthen the adhesiveness of the adhesiveness of the laminate and can be exemplified at about 150 to 250oC for about 1 to 5 mins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In US 2017/0005299 A1, KURAMOTO et al. teach a package for a power storage device includes a metal foil layer, an insulation layer laminated on the metal foil layer, which is selected from a group consisting of a resin including acid-modified polyolefin and polyfunctional isocyanate, a thermosetting resin ana photocurable resin, and a heat-sealable resin layer on one surface of the metal foil layer. The package can also include an acid-resistant layer made of one or more polyester resin, a polyamide resin and a polyolefin resin (claims).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA GILLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM& 2nd Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
BARBARA L GILLIAM
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights