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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/304,365 (reference application, henceforth referred to as ‘365). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 1, ‘365 claims a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly. ‘365 also claims a pouch including an upper sheet (cover portion) and a lower sheet (case body portion) accommodating the electrode assembly wherein the pouch is formed with a sealing portion sealing the upper sheet and the lower sheet on an outer portion. The sealing portion includes a polymer compound layer between the top sheet and the bottom sheet in at least a portion, and the polymer compound layer includes a polymer compound. The polymer compound is a thermally expandable polymer compound of a composite of a hydroxy group-containing compound and silica; or at least one heat-shrinkable polymer compound selected from the group comprising polyphenylene ether (PPE), polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM) and polyamide (PA) (claim 1).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 2, ‘365 further claims the composite of the hydroxy group-containing compound and the silica is a composite of polyurethane and silica (claim 2).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 3 and 4, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound layer being formed on a portion or an entirety of a width of the sealing portion, and the polymer compound layer being formed on the sealing portion of a surface from which the electrode lead is drawn out (claim 3).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 5, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound layer having a thickness of 3 to 25 µm (claim 5).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 6, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound layer including a thermally expandable polymer compound, and has a volume at a temperature of 80 °C or higher, which is 30 to 4,000 times a volume at room temperature (claim 7).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 7, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound layer includes a heat-shrinkable polymer compound, and has a volume at 80 °C or higher, which is 0.02 to 0.9 times a volume at room temperature (claim 8).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 8, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound being in a form of a bead, a pillar, a flake, or powder (claim 9).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 9, ‘365 further claims the polymer compound comprising expanded graphite filled inside of the polymer compound (claim 10).
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the top sheet” and “the bottom sheet” without proper antecedent basis. These should be changed to “the upper sheet” and “the lower sheet,” respectively.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “powder.” This should be changed to “a powder.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 “a hydroxy group-containing compound and silica.” Claim 2 recites the limitation “the hydroxy group-containing compound and the silica is a composite of polyurethane and silica.” The only example in the instant specification of the hydroxy group-containing compound is polyurethane ([0041]). Polyurethane is not generally considered to be a hydroxy-group containing compound. The precursor materials for polyurethane generally include a polyol containing 2 hydroxy groups, however these are consumed upon formation of the polyurethane. Therefore, it is unclear if the “hydroxy group-containing compound” in the claims is referring to the reaction materials of the compound or the final compound.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the electrode lead,” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the secondary battery of claim 4 comprises the electrode lead, as it has not been positively claimed, or if this is intended use language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a thermally expandable polymer compound” which is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this is the same thermally expandable polymer compound in claim 1 or is a second thermally expandable polymer compound.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a heat-shrinkable polymer compound” which is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this is the same heat-shrinkable polymer compound in claim 1 or is a second heat-shrinkable polymer compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1 and WO-2019111888-A1.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 4, Tanaka teaches a film-like packaging material and a battery made using the film-like packaging material ([0135]). The battery is a secondary battery ([0136]), which includes an electrode assembly ([0135]) which is accommodated in a pouch including an upper sheet and a lower sheet ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3, upper and lower sections).
The pouch is formed with a sealing portion (flange portion) sealing the upper sheet and the lower sheet on an outer portion ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3a). The sealing portion includes a polymer compound layer between the top sheet and the bottom sheet in at least a portion, and the polymer compound layer includes a polymer compound ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #1). The polymer compound layer is formed on a portion of the width of the sealing portion. The sealing portion is on a surface from which the electrode lead is drawn out (fig. 2 ref. #1 and #2).
The polymer compound is selected from a group of polymer compounds, including both polyamide and polycarbonate ([0059]). The polyamide or polycarbonate may be made of a uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film ([0063]).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polyamide or polycarbonate uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film is heat shrinkable.
As evidenced by Tujimoto, a general means for imparting heat shrinkability to a thermoplastic resin film is by a stretching treatment such as uniaxial stretching or biaxial stretching. By changing the settings of the stretching conditions, it is possible to increase or decrease the heat shrinkage rate of the stretched resin film ([0005]). Therefore, the uniaxially stretched or biaxially stretched polyamide or polycarbonate resin of Tanaka is deemed to be heat shrinkable.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the claimed limitations only further limit the optional thermally expandable polymer compound and do not require the thermally expandable polymer compound to be present. Therefore, since Tanaka discloses the heat-shrinkable compound it also anticipates claims 2 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above.
Tanaka also teaches the width of the polymer compound as being between 5 to 100 µm ([0070]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 3 to 25 µm. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03).
In the alternative, the claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanaka because of the overlap of the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888), in view of Kim et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0052056). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, and KR-20120052056-A.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polymer compound layer includes a heat-shrinkable polymer compound that has a volume at 80 °C or higher which is 0.02 to 0.9 times a volume at room temperature.
Kim teaches an environment friendly heat shrinkable film (title). The heat shrinkable film contains a carbonate polymer ([0014]). The heat shrinkable film has a volume at a temperature above 80 °C (90 °C) which is 0.02 to 0.9 times the volume at room temperature (30% reduction, or 0.7) ([0014]). In the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka by using the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to as the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim has excellent heat shrinkability, shrinkage stress, coefficient of friction, and heat resistance (Kim, [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Takahagi et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 105794012). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, and CN-105794012-A.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound being in a form of a bead, a pillar, a flake, or powder.
Takahagi teaches a battery packaging material comprising a film-like laminate comprising at least a substrate layer, an adhesive layer, a metal layer and a sealing layer stacked sequentially (abstract). Takahagi also teaches using a polyamide in the form of a bead or powder (granule) to form a resin layer ([0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use a polyamide in bead or powder form. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as it allows for the laminated battery packaging material to be formed by heating and melting the polyamide bead or powder and co-extruding it with other layers of the laminate (Takahagi, [0139]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Bem et. al. (WIPO Application Publication No. 2021/1233838). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1 and WO-2019111888-A1.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound comprising expanded graphite filled inside of the polymer compound.
Bem teaches a laminated metal polymer structure for use in batteries (abstract). The polymer layer in the metal polymer laminated structure can be made of polyamide (page 6, lines 33-35) and contains expanded graphite (page 3, lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka with the inclusion of expanded graphite in the polymer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as to reduce heat transmission through the polymer layer (Bem, page 15, lines 15-19).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, and JP-2021099915-A.
Regarding claims 1- 4, Tanaka teaches a film-like packaging material and a battery made using the film-like packaging material ([0135]). The battery is a secondary battery ([0136]), which includes an electrode assembly ([0135]) which is accommodated in a pouch including an upper sheet and a lower sheet ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3, upper and lower sections).
The pouch is formed with a sealing portion (flange portion) sealing the upper sheet and the lower sheet on an outer portion ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3a). The sealing portion includes a polymer compound layer between the top sheet and the bottom sheet in at least a portion, and the polymer compound layer includes a polymer compound ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #1). The polymer compound layer is formed on a portion of the width of the sealing portion. The sealing portion is on a surface from which the electrode lead is drawn out (fig. 2 ref. #1 and #2).
The polymer compound is selected from a group of polymer compounds, including both polyamide and polycarbonate ([0059]). The polyamide or polycarbonate may be made of a uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film ([0063]).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polyamide or polycarbonate uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film is heat shrinkable.
As evidenced by Tujimoto, a general means for imparting heat shrinkability to a thermoplastic resin film is by a stretching treatment such as uniaxial stretching or biaxial stretching. By changing the settings of the stretching conditions, it is possible to increase or decrease the heat shrinkage rate of the stretched resin film ([0005]). Therefore, the uniaxially stretched or biaxially stretched polyamide or polycarbonate resin of Tanaka is deemed to be heat shrinkable.
Tanaka does not teach a thermally expandable polymer compound of a composite of a hydroxy group-containing compound and silica or the composite of the hydroxy group-containing compound and the silica is a composite of polyurethane and silica.
Hiroshima teaches a packaging material for a battery (electronic storage device). The packaging material is a laminated sheet containing several layers, one of which being a composite of a hydroxy group-containing polyurethane ([0017]) and silica ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the polymer compound of Hiroshima in place of the polymer compound of Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to improve the appearance, adhesiveness, and coatability of the polymer compound ([0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka also teaches the width of the polymer compound as being between 5 to 100 µm ([0070]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 3 to 25 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka in view of Hiroshima does not explicitly teach the polymer compound having a volume at a temperature of 80 °C or higher, which is 30 to 4,000 times a volume at room temperature, however it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. polyurethane and silica) used to produce the polymer compound layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.III
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of Kim et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0052056). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, JP-2021099915-A, and KR-20120052056-A.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polymer compound layer includes a heat-shrinkable polymer compound that has a volume at 80 °C or higher which is 0.02 to 0.9 times a volume at room temperature.
Kim teaches an environment friendly heat shrinkable film (title). The heat shrinkable film contains a carbonate polymer ([0014]). The heat shrinkable film has a volume at a temperature above 80 °C (90 °C) which is 0.02 to 0.9 times the volume at room temperature (30% reduction, or 0.7) ([0014]). In the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka by using the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to as the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim has excellent heat shrinkability, shrinkage stress, coefficient of friction, and heat resistance (Kim, [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of Takahagi (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 105794012). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, JP-2021099915-A, and CN-105794012-A.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound being in a form of a bead, a pillar, a flake, or powder.
Takahagi teaches a battery packaging material comprising a film-like laminate comprising at least a substrate layer, an adhesive layer, a metal layer and a sealing layer stacked sequentially (abstract). Takahagi also teaches using a polyamide in the form of a bead or powder (granule) to form a resin layer ([0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use a polyamide in bead or powder form. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as it allows for the laminated battery packaging material to be formed by heating and melting the polyamide bead or powder and co-extruding it with other layers of the laminate (Takahagi, [0139]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of Bem et. al. (WIPO Application Publication No. 2021/1233838). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, and JP-2021099915-A.
Tanaka is relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound comprising expanded graphite filled inside of the polymer compound.
Bem teaches a laminated metal polymer structure for use in batteries (abstract). The polymer layer in the metal polymer laminated structure can be made of polyamide (page 6, lines 33-35) and contains expanded graphite (page 3, lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka with the inclusion of expanded graphite in the polymer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as to reduce heat transmission through the polymer layer (Bem, page 15, lines 15-19).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Lee et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0020888) and Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, KR-20090020888-A, and JP-2021099915-A.
Regarding claims 1-4, Tanaka teaches a film-like packaging material and a battery made using the film-like packaging material ([0135]). The battery is a secondary battery ([0136]), which includes an electrode assembly ([0135]) which is accommodated in a pouch including an upper sheet and a lower sheet ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3, upper and lower sections).
The pouch is formed with a sealing portion (flange portion) sealing the upper sheet and the lower sheet on an outer portion ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #3a). The sealing portion includes a polymer compound layer between the top sheet and the bottom sheet in at least a portion, and the polymer compound layer includes a polymer compound ([0135], and fig. 2 ref. #1). The polymer compound layer is formed on a portion of the width of the sealing portion. The sealing portion is on a surface from which the electrode lead is drawn out (fig. 2 ref. #1 and #2).
The polymer compound is selected from a group of polymer compounds, including both polyamide and polycarbonate ([0059]). The polyamide or polycarbonate may be made of a uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film ([0063]).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polyamide or polycarbonate uniaxially or biaxially stretched resin film is heat shrinkable.
As evidenced by Tujimoto, a general means for imparting heat shrinkability to a thermoplastic resin film is by a stretching treatment such as uniaxial stretching or biaxial stretching. By changing the settings of the stretching conditions, it is possible to increase or decrease the heat shrinkage rate of the stretched resin film ([0005]). Therefore, the uniaxially stretched or biaxially stretched polyamide or polycarbonate resin of Tanaka is deemed to be heat shrinkable.
Tanaka also does not explicitly teach the polymer compound being a thermally expandable polymer compound of a composite of a hydroxy group-containing compound, or the composite of the hydroxy group-containing compound is a composite of polyurethane.
Lee teaches a battery (electrochemical device) and a case for the battery with improved stability even in case of the abnormal increase of internal temperature (abstract). The pouch case is a plurality of layers, in which one of the layers is a thermally expanding polymer compound (foaming agent within a binder polymer) (page 5 lines 5-15, and fig. 2 ref. #5) which can be selected from a group of polymers including polyurethane (page 10 lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the expanding polyurethane layer of Lee in the laminated pouch case of Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as the expanding polymer layer allows for increased safety of the battery by allowing for venting of the battery at increased temperature and a decreased concentration of oxygen, in turn suppressing explosion and ignition risk (page 4 line 14 to page 5 line 2).
Tanaka in view of Lee does not teach the polymer compound being a thermally expandable polymer compound of a composite of a hydroxy group-containing compound and silica, or the composite of the hydroxy group-containing compound being a composite of polyurethane and silica.
Hiroshima teaches a packaging material for a battery (electronic storage device). The packaging material is a laminated sheet containing several layers, one of which being a polymer compound layer that is a composite of a hydroxy group-containing polyurethane ([0017]) and silica ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the polymer layer of Lee with the addition of silica as taught in Hiroshima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as silica dispersed within the polymer layer will increase mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka also teaches the width of the polymer compound as being between 5 to 100 µm ([0070]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 3 to 25 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, Lee, and Hiroshima do not explicitly teach the polymer compound having a volume at a temperature of 80 °C or higher, which is 30 to 4,000 times a volume at room temperature, however it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. polyurethane and silica) used to produce the polymer compound layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.III
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Lee et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0020888) and Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of Kim et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0052056). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, KR-20090020888-A, and JP-2021099915-A, and KR-20120052056-A.
Tanaka, Tujimoto, Lee, and Hiroshima are relied upon as described above
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the polymer compound layer includes a heat-shrinkable polymer compound that has a volume at 80 °C or higher which is 0.02 to 0.9 times a volume at room temperature.
Kim teaches an environment friendly heat shrinkable film (title). The heat shrinkable film contains a carbonate polymer ([0014]). The heat shrinkable film has a volume at a temperature above 80 °C (90 °C) which is 0.02 to 0.9 times the volume at room temperature (30% reduction, or 0.7) ([0014]). In the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka by using the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to as the heat shrinkable polymer of Kim has excellent heat shrinkability, shrinkage stress, coefficient of friction, and heat resistance (Kim, [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Lee et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0020888) and Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of Takahagi (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 105794012). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, KR-20090020888-A, and JP-2021099915-A, and CN-105794012-A.
Tanaka, Tujimoto, Lee, and Hiroshima are relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound being in a form of a bead, a pillar, a flake, or powder.
Takahagi teaches a battery packaging material comprising a film-like laminate comprising at least a substrate layer, an adhesive layer, a metal layer and a sealing layer stacked sequentially (abstract). Takahagi also teaches using a polyamide in the form of a bead or powder (granule) to form a resin layer ([0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use a polyamide in bead or powder form. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as it allows for the laminated battery packaging material to be formed by heating and melting the polyamide bead or powder and co-extruding it with other layers of the laminate (Takahagi, [0139]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2018/186463) as evidenced by Tujimoto et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2019/111888) in view of Lee et. al. (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0020888) and Hiroshima et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2021/099915), further in view of in view of Bem et. al. (WIPO Application Publication No. 2021/1233838). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2018186463-A1, WO-2019111888-A1, KR-20090020888-A, and JP-2021099915-A.
Tanaka, Tujimoto, Lee, and Hiroshima are relied upon as described above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the polymer compound comprising expanded graphite filled inside of the polymer compound.
Bem teaches a laminated metal polymer structure for use in batteries (abstract). The polymer layer in the metal polymer laminated structure can be made of polyamide (page 6, lines 33-35) and contains expanded graphite (page 3, lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify Tanaka with the inclusion of expanded graphite in the polymer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as to reduce heat transmission through the polymer layer (Bem, page 15, lines 15-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
/MAL/
Myles Alan Lovasz Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1/30/2026