DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 8/5/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 8/5/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/071254 A1 (“WO’254”) in view of US 2017/0025647 A1 (“US’647”).
As to Claim 1:
WO’254 discloses a film-like exterior material for a secondary battery comprising an outer base layer, a metal barrier layer, and an inner heat-fusible sealant layer. Specifically, WO’254 discloses a film-like laminate having a base material, an aluminum-alloy foil layer, and a heat-fusible resin layer arranged in sequence, wherein the laminate is cold formed to receive a battery element and heat sealed to enclose the battery element (WO’254, Pgs. 2-3). WO’254 further discloses that the exterior material is preferably used for a secondary battery, including a lithium-ion battery or lithium-ion polymer battery (WO’254, Pg. 19);
WO’254 discloses that the total thickness of the exterior material may be about 35-180 μm, 35-155 μm, 45-180 μm, 45-155 μm, 60-180 μm, or 60-155 μm, thereby teaching total-thickness ranges encompassing 153 μm or more (WO’254, Pg. 3);
WO’254 Example 3 discloses a laminate comprising a 25 μm biaxially stretched nylon outer layer, a 3 μm adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum-alloy metal layer, a 4 μm adhesive layer, a 30 μm unstretched polypropylene film expressly identified as CPP, and a 20 μm polypropylene layer laminated by melt extrusion, wherein the 30 μm CPP layer and 20 μm melt-extruded PP layer form a two-layer heat-fusible sealant structure (WO’254, Pg. 21);
WO’254 Example 3 further satisfies the claimed
A
+
B
relationship because its total thickness is:
25
+
3
+
40
+
4
+
30
+
20
=
122
μ
m
,
such that:
A
=
40
122
=
0.3279
and, because the thickness of the sealant layer is
30
+
20
=
50
μm:
B
=
40
50
=
0.8
.
Therefore:
A
+
B
=
0.3279
+
0.8
=
1.1279
<
1.354
;
and WO’254 Example 3 satisfies the claimed
C
relationship because:
C
=
20
30
=
0.6667
>
0.6
(WO’254, Pg. 21).
However, although WO’254 generally teaches total-thickness ranges encompassing 153 μm and Example 3 satisfies the claimed
A
+
B
and
C
relationships, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a single working example combining Example 3’s CPP/melt-extruded-PP sealant structure with a total thickness of 153 μm or more.
US’647 discloses a packaging material for secondary electrical-storage devices comprising a base layer, a metal foil layer, an extruded modified-PP adhesive layer, and a non-stretched PP sealant layer (US’647, [0002]-[0004], [0026]-[0027], and [0055]-[0060]). US’647 teaches that the base layer preferably has a thickness of 20-50 μm, the metal foil layer preferably has a thickness of 30-60 μm, and the combined second adhesive and sealant layers preferably have a thickness of 25-90 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0041], and [0060]). US’647 explains that these thicknesses improve protection and formability, maintain insulation between the battery element or tab and the metal foil, reduce warpage after forming, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0011], [0035], and [0060]).
More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm biaxially stretched nylon base material A-4, a 40 μm aluminum metal foil C-1, an extruded maleic-anhydride-modified PP adhesive resin E-1, and a 40 μm non-stretched polypropylene film F-2 (US’647, [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0142]). US’647 further discloses forming a 5 μm first adhesive layer and a 20 μm extruded inner adhesive layer and preparing additional examples by changing the materials and layer thicknesses according to Table 1 (US’647, [0145]-[0146]). Example 1-4 therefore provides a 155 μm laminate comprising a 50 μm base layer, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum layer, and a 60 μm combined inner adhesive/sealant thickness (US’647, [0117], [0128], and [0145]-[0146]).
WO’254 and US’647 are analogous arts because both references concern film-like laminated packaging materials for secondary electrical-storage devices, both employ an outer resin layer, an aluminum metal layer, and an inner polypropylene heat-sealing layer, and both address forming the packaging material while protecting and sealing a battery element (WO’254, Pgs. 2-3 and 19; US’647, [0002]-[0004], [0011], and [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify WO’254 Example 3 using the thicker base and adhesive layers taught by US’647, while retaining WO’254’s 30 μm CPP and 20 μm melt-extruded PP layers, to improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, and reduce warpage as taught by US’647. The resulting 165 μm laminate would satisfy
A
+
B
<
1.354
and
C
>
0.6
, thereby providing the secondary-battery pouch film recited in claim 1.
As to Claim 2:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
WO’254 further discloses that Example 3 includes a sealant layer having a 30 μm unstretched polypropylene film expressly identified as CPP and a 20 μm polypropylene layer laminated by melt extrusion (WO’254, Pg. 21). Accordingly, Example 3 has a
C
value of:
C
=
thickness of extruded PP layer
thickness of CPP layer
=
20
30
=
0.6667
.
The
C
value of 0.6667 is greater than 0.6 and less than 1.0 and, therefore, falls within the range recited in claim 2 (WO’254, Pg. 21).
However, although WO’254 Example 3 expressly discloses the additional
C
-value limitation of claim 2, Example 3 has a total thickness of only 122 μm and does not expressly disclose a single pouch-film embodiment combining its
C
value of 0.6667 with the total-thickness requirement of 153 μm or more recited in claim 1.
US’647 discloses thicker laminated packaging materials for secondary electrical-storage devices. US’647 teaches a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined second-adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0041], and [0060]). More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm biaxially stretched nylon base material A-4, a 40 μm aluminum metal foil C-1, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, and a 20 μm extruded inner adhesive layer (US’647, [0117], [0128], and [0145]-[0146]). US’647 explains that its disclosed layer thicknesses improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, reduce warpage after forming, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0011], [0035], and [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify WO’254 Example 3 using the thicker base and adhesive layers taught by US’647, while retaining WO’254’s 30 μm CPP layer and 20 μm melt-extruded PP layer, to obtain a pouch film having a total thickness of 153 μm or more and a
C
value of 0.6667, which falls within the range recited in claim 2.
As to Claim 4:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch film limitations of claim 2 as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above;
WO’254 further discloses evaluating the curling of its exterior materials after forming to a depth of 8 mm. WO’254 prepares 150 mm by 90 mm specimens, cold forms the specimens using a 31.6 mm by 54.5 mm mold, places each formed specimen on a horizontal surface, and measures the maximum vertical distance between the end of the specimen and the horizontal surface as the molding-curl value (WO’254, Pgs. 27-28); and
WO’254 reports in Table 2 that Example 3 has a molding-curl measurement value of 12.3 mm at a forming depth of 8 mm, which is less than the 20 mm curling measurement value recited in claim 4 (WO’254, Pgs. 27-28, Table 2; original Table 2).
However, although WO’254 Example 3 discloses a curling measurement value of 12.3 mm and satisfies the
C
-value limitation of claim 2, Example 3 has a total thickness of only 122 μm and does not expressly disclose a single pouch-film embodiment combining the reported curling value with the total-thickness requirement of 153 μm or more recited in claim 1.
US’647 discloses thicker laminated packaging materials for secondary electrical-storage devices. US’647 teaches that the base layer preferably has a thickness of 20-50 μm, the metal foil layer preferably has a thickness of 30-60 μm, and the combined second-adhesive/sealant thickness preferably is 25-90 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0041], and [0060]). More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm biaxially stretched nylon base material A-4, a 40 μm aluminum metal foil C-1, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, and a 20 μm extruded inner adhesive layer (US’647, [0117], [0128], and [0145]-[0146]). US’647 explains that a base-layer thickness of 50 μm or less reduces warpage after forming and that its disclosed layer thicknesses improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0011], [0035], and [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify WO’254 Example 3 using the thicker base and adhesive layers taught by US’647, while retaining WO’254’s curl-suppressing CPP/melt-extruded-PP arrangement, to obtain a pouch film having a total thickness of 153 μm or more and reduced warpage after forming, including the curling measurement value of less than 20 mm recited in claim 4.
As to Claim 5:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claim 2 as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above;
WO’254 further discloses evaluating formability by cutting its exterior materials into 90 mm by 150 mm specimens and cold forming the specimens at successively increasing forming depths using a 31.6 mm by 54.5 mm mold. WO’254 defines the limit-forming depth based on the greatest depth at which pinholes or cracks do not occur in the aluminum-alloy foil of the tested specimens (WO’254, Pgs. 27-28); and
WO’254 thus recognizes forming depth as a measure of pouch-film formability and teaches selecting the laminate structure to permit relatively deep forming without pinholes or cracks (WO’254, Pgs. 2-4 and 27-28).
However, WO’254 does not clearly disclose that its Example 3 film, which has a total thickness of only 122 μm, has a formability measurement value of 6 mm or more when modified to have the total thickness of 153 μm or more required by claim 1.
US’647 discloses packaging materials having a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined second-adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0041], and [0060]). US’647 explains that these thicknesses protect the metal foil, reduce breakage during forming, and improve the formability of the packaging material (US’647, [0011], [0035], and [0041]).
US’647 further discloses evaluating formability by setting the forming depth from 3 mm to 17 mm in 0.5 mm increments (US’647, [0185]). A formability rating of “a” means that deep drawing to a forming depth of 10-17 mm was possible without breakage or cracks, while a rating of “b” means that deep drawing to a forming depth of 8 mm or more but less than 10 mm was possible without breakage or cracks (US’647, [0186]-[0187]). US’647 expressly reports that Example 2-4, which used packaging material Example 1-4, received an “a” formability rating and could be deep drawn to a depth of at least 10 mm without breakage or cracks (US’647, [0183]-[0189], Table 3). Thus, US’647 teaches a packaging material having a formability measurement exceeding the 6 mm minimum recited in claim 5.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify WO’254 Example 3 using the thicker, formable layer dimensions taught by US’647 to obtain a pouch film having a total thickness of 153 μm or more and a formability measurement value of at least 6 mm, because US’647 expressly teaches that those layer thicknesses improve formability and permit forming to depths of at least 10 mm without breakage or cracks.
As to Claim 8:
WO’254 discloses a method of preparing a film-like exterior material for a secondary battery comprising an outer base layer, a metal barrier layer, and an inner heat-fusible sealant layer. The method includes sequentially laminating the base layer, aluminum barrier layer, and heat-fusible resin layer using dry lamination, thermal lamination, extrusion lamination, or combinations thereof (WO’254, Pgs. 18-19);
WO’254 Example 3 discloses preparing a laminate comprising a 25 μm biaxially stretched nylon outer layer, a 3 μm adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum-alloy metal layer, a 4 μm adhesive layer, a 30 μm unstretched polypropylene film expressly identified as CPP, and a 20 μm polypropylene layer laminated by melt extrusion. The 30 μm CPP layer and the 20 μm melt-extruded PP layer form a two-layer heat-fusible sealant structure (WO’254, Pgs. 21-22);
WO’254 Example 3 further discloses selecting the respective layer thicknesses such that:
A
=
40
25
+
3
+
40
+
4
+
30
+
20
=
40
122
=
0.3279
,
and therefore:
A
+
B
=
1.1279
<
1.354
.
Example 3 also provides:
C
=
20
30
=
0.6667
>
0.6
.
Thus, WO’254 discloses preparing a pouch film having the claimed outer layer, metal layer, CPP layer, and extruded PP layer, with the respective layer thicknesses satisfying the numerical relationships of Equation 1 (WO’254, Pgs. 21-22). WO’254 also generally teaches total pouch-film thickness ranges extending to 155 μm and 180 μm, thereby encompassing a total thickness of at least 153 μm (WO’254, Pg. 3).
However, although WO’254 Example 3 satisfies Equation 1, Example 3 has a total thickness of only 122 μm. WO’254 does not expressly disclose a single preparation example in which the thicknesses of Example 3’s CPP/extruded-PP structure are adjusted to provide both a total thickness of at least 153 μm and the numerical relationships of Equation 1.
US’647 discloses a method of preparing a laminated packaging material for secondary electrical-storage devices by forming a base layer on a metal foil layer through a first adhesive layer and forming a polypropylene sealant layer on the opposite surface through an extruded polypropylene adhesive layer (US’647, [0061]-[0074]). US’647 teaches selecting a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined inner adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm to improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, reduce warpage, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0035], [0041], and [0055]-[0060]).
More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm biaxially stretched nylon base material, a 40 μm aluminum foil, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, a 20 μm extruded modified-PP inner adhesive layer, and a non-stretched polypropylene film (US’647, [0117], [0128], [0139], [0141]-[0145]). US’647 further expressly discloses preparing different packaging materials by changing the materials and thicknesses of the individual layers according to Table 1 (US’647, [0145]-[0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare WO’254’s pouch film by adjusting the outer and adhesive layer thicknesses according to US’647’s disclosed thickness selections, while retaining WO’254’s 40 μm metal layer, 30 μm CPP layer, and 20 μm melt-extruded PP layer, to improve protection, formability, insulation, and resistance to warpage. The resulting 165 μm film would necessarily satisfy
A
+
B
=
1.0424
<
1.354
and
C
=
0.6667
>
0.6
, thereby satisfying Equation 1 and providing the method recited in claim 8.
As to Claim 9:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
WO’254 further discloses a secondary battery packaged with the pouch film. Specifically, WO’254 teaches placing a power-storage-device element comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte within a package formed from the exterior material, with the metal terminals protruding outward, and heat-sealing the mutually contacting heat-fusible resin layers around the element (WO’254, Pg. 19); and
WO’254 expressly teaches that its exterior material is suitably used for batteries and is preferably used for a secondary battery (WO’254, Pgs. 19-20).
However, although WO’254 teaches packaging a secondary battery with the disclosed pouch film, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a single pouch-film example having Example 3’s CPP/melt-extruded-PP sealant structure, the numerical relationships of Equation 1, and a total thickness of at least 153 μm as required by incorporated claim 1.
US’647 discloses laminated packaging materials for secondary electrical-storage devices, including lithium-ion secondary batteries, and teaches placing a battery element comprising a positive electrode, separator, negative electrode, and electrolyte within a recess formed in the packaging material (US’647, [0002]-[0004] and [0093]-[0102]). US’647 further teaches folding the packaging material over the battery element and heat-sealing the overlapped portions to enclose the battery element (US’647, [0096]-[0102]).
US’647 teaches a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined inner adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm to improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, reduce warpage, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0035], [0041], and [0060]). More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum layer, and a 20 μm extruded modified-PP inner adhesive layer, and expressly teaches preparing different packaging materials by changing the materials and thicknesses of the individual layers (US’647, [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0145]-[0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to package WO’254’s secondary battery using the modified 165 μm pouch film discussed in the rejection of claim 1, because US’647 teaches that its layer-thickness selections improve protection, formability, insulation, and resistance to warpage. The resulting secondary battery would be packaged with a pouch film satisfying the incorporated limitations of claim 1 and, therefore, would provide the secondary battery recited in claim 9.
As to Claim 11:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
WO’254 further discloses a method of manufacturing a secondary battery comprising packaging a secondary-battery element with the pouch film. Specifically, WO’254 teaches positioning a power-storage-device element comprising at least a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte within the exterior material, while allowing the metal terminals connected to the electrodes to protrude outward (WO’254, Pg. 19);
WO’254 teaches covering the periphery of the power-storage-device element with the exterior material such that the heat-fusible resin layer faces inward toward the element and mutually contacting portions of the heat-fusible resin layer form a flange region (WO’254, Pg. 19); and
WO’254 teaches heat-sealing the heat-fusible resin layers in the flange region to seal the power-storage-device element within the package, thereby manufacturing the power-storage device. WO’254 expressly identifies a secondary battery as a preferred power-storage device (WO’254, Pgs. 19-20).
However, although WO’254 teaches the claimed method of packaging a secondary battery with a pouch film, WO’254 does not expressly disclose performing that method using a single pouch-film example having Example 3’s CPP/melt-extruded-PP sealant structure, the numerical relationships of Equation 1, and a total thickness of at least 153 μm as required by incorporated claim 1.
US’647 discloses a method of manufacturing a secondary battery using a laminated packaging material. US’647 teaches arranging a battery element within a recess formed in the packaging material, folding and overlapping the packaging material so that a lid portion covers the recess, and pressure heat-sealing the overlapped portions (US’647, [0096]-[0101]). US’647 further teaches heat-sealing the sides, introducing electrolyte through an unsealed side, and vacuum heat-sealing the remaining side to enclose the battery element (US’647, [0102]-[0103]).
US’647 also teaches selecting a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined inner adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm to improve protection and formability, maintain insulation, reduce warpage, and avoid excessive thickness that could impair formability (US’647, [0035], [0041], and [0060]). More particularly, US’647 discloses a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum layer, and a 20 μm extruded modified-PP inner adhesive layer, and teaches preparing different packaging materials by changing the materials and thicknesses of the individual layers (US’647, [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0145]-[0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to manufacture WO’254’s secondary battery by packaging the battery element with the modified 165 μm pouch film discussed in the rejection of claim 1, because US’647 teaches that its layer-thickness selections improve protection, formability, insulation, and resistance to warpage. The resulting method would package a secondary battery using a pouch film satisfying the incorporated limitations of claim 1, as recited in claim 11.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/071254 A1 (“WO’254”) in view of US 2017/0025647 A1 (“US’647”), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of JP 2022-120161 A (“JP’161”).
As to Claim 3:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 2 above;
WO’254 further discloses an adhesive layer positioned between the aluminum barrier layer and the polypropylene heat-fusible sealant layer to firmly bond those layers together. WO’254 teaches that the adhesive layer preferably includes an acid-modified polyolefin, particularly maleic-anhydride-modified polypropylene, and may be cured using an epoxy-containing curing agent to improve adhesion between the barrier and sealant layers (WO’254, Pgs. 15-17); and
WO’254 Example 3 discloses a pouch film comprising a nylon outer layer, an aluminum metal layer, an adhesive layer, a 30 μm CPP layer, and a 20 μm melt-extruded PP layer (WO’254, Pgs. 21-22).
However, although WO’254 teaches improving adhesion between its metal and sealant layers, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a pouch film having both the total thickness required by claim 1 and a peel-strength measurement of at least 8 N under the test associated with claim 3.
US’647 discloses increasing the thickness of a laminated battery-packaging film while maintaining formability and insulation. US’647 teaches a base-layer thickness of 20-50 μm, a metal-foil thickness of 30-60 μm, and a combined inner adhesive/sealant thickness of 25-90 μm (US’647, [0035], [0041], and [0060]). US’647 specifically discloses a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm first adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum layer, a 20 μm extruded maleic-anhydride-modified PP adhesive layer, and a non-stretched PP sealant film (US’647, [0117], [0128], [0139], [0141]-[0145]). US’647 further teaches preparing different packaging films by changing the materials and thicknesses of the individual layers (US’647, [0145]-[0146]). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, these teachings provide a 165 μm pouch film satisfying the numerical relationships of Equation 1.
Nevertheless, neither WO’254 nor US’647 expressly reports that the resulting pouch film has the peel-strength measurement of at least 8 N recited in claim 3.
JP’161 discloses a secondary-battery pouch film comprising an outer layer, an aluminum metal layer, a primer layer, a melt-extruded polypropylene layer, and a non-stretched polypropylene or CPP sealant layer (JP’161, Pgs. 8-9). JP’161 teaches forming the primer layer from a two-component organic-solvent emulsion comprising acid-modified polypropylene and a curing agent and positioning the primer between the metal layer and the melt-extruded polypropylene or sealant layer to improve adhesion (JP’161, Pgs. 5 and 8-9).
JP’161 evaluates peel strength by cutting the secondary-battery pouch film into specimens having a width of 1.5 cm and a length of 15 cm and peeling the metal layer from the sealant layer (JP’161, Pg. 10). JP’161 teaches that an initial peel strength of at least 14 N/15 mm is preferred and discloses pouch films having an initial peel strength of 14.0 N/15 mm or more, including embodiments having an initial peel strength of 14.0-15.0 N/15 mm (JP’161, Pgs. 4 and 8). JP’161 further reports that pouch films prepared using its reduced-curing-temperature primer exhibited initial peel strengths of at least 12 N/15 mm under specified drying conditions (JP’161, Pgs. 10-12). These disclosed values exceed the 8 N minimum recited in claim 3.
WO’254, US’647, and JP’161 are analogous arts because all three references concern multilayer pouch films for secondary batteries comprising an outer resin layer, an aluminum barrier layer, and an inner polypropylene sealant layer, and all address adhesion, formability, and durability of the laminate during battery-packaging manufacture (WO’254, Pgs. 2-3 and 15-17; US’647, [0002]-[0004] and [0055]-[0060]; JP’161, Pgs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the inner acid-modified-PP adhesive layer of the combined WO’254/US’647 pouch film using JP’161’s two-component primer composition and curing conditions to improve adhesion between the metal and polypropylene layers. JP’161 teaches that this modification provides peel strengths exceeding 8 N/15 mm, thereby providing the peel-strength limitation of claim 3.
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/071254 A1 (“WO’254”) in view of US 2017/0025647 A1 (“US’647”), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of KR 2017-0082736 A (“KR’736”).
As to Claim 6:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 2 above;
WO’254 discloses that the outer base layer has an insulating property (WO’254, Pg. 5); and
WO’254 discloses a multilayer pouch film comprising a nylon base outer layer, an aluminum-alloy-foil barrier layer, an adhesive layer, an unstretched cast-polypropylene (“CPP”) layer, and a melt-extruded polypropylene (“PP”) layer. The resin layers provide electrical insulation between the battery contents and the metal barrier layer (WO’254, Pgs. 2, 5, and 21-22).
However, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a pouch film having a total thickness of at least 153 μm. WO’254 also does not expressly report that its pouch film provides an insulation measurement value of at least 100 GΩ, or at least 50 GΩ and less than 100 GΩ, under the insulation-evaluation procedure recited in claim 6.
US’647 discloses secondary-battery pouch films having total thicknesses of at least 153 μm. For example, Example 1-4 comprises a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum-foil layer, a 20 μm extruded modified-polypropylene adhesive layer, and a 40 μm unstretched-polypropylene sealant layer, providing a total thickness of 155 μm. Example 1-12 similarly provides a total thickness of 160 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0141]-[0146], Table 1).
US’647 further discloses preparing electrolyte-filled pouch specimens having tab leads, contacting electrodes with the tab leads and metal-foil layer, applying a voltage, and measuring electrical-insulation resistance. US’647 reports pouch specimens having an electrical-insulation resistance of at least 25 GΩ at both tested heat-sealing temperatures (US’647, [0149]-[0151], Table 2).
KR’736 discloses improving the insulation resistance and gas-barrier properties of a secondary-battery cell pouch comprising an outer layer, an aluminum metal layer, and a polypropylene sealant layer by incorporating polyvinylidene chloride (“PVDC”) into an intermediate layer or the sealant layer (KR’736, Pgs. 2-5). KR’736 teaches PVDC concentrations of 1-40 wt.% and explains that the PVDC-containing layer significantly increases the insulation resistance and barrier properties of the pouch (KR’736, Pgs. 3-4).
KR’736 further discloses forming 30 mm × 40 mm × 6 mm-deep dummy pouch cells, introducing electrolyte while sealing the pouch, providing a tab region, applying voltage between a punched pouch region and the tab region, and measuring electrical-insulation resistance. KR’736 reports that its PVDC-containing examples provide improved insulation resistance relative to a pouch without PVDC and identifies the pouch having both a PVDC coating layer and a polypropylene/PVDC extruded-resin layer as providing particularly high insulation resistance (KR’736, Pgs. 5-7).
WO’254, US’647, and KR’736 are analogous arts because each reference concerns secondary-battery pouch packaging having an outer resin layer, an aluminum barrier layer, and an inner polypropylene sealant layer, and each addresses electrical insulation, formability, barrier properties, and mechanical reliability of the pouch film (WO’254, Pgs. 1-5; US’647, [0002]-[0004], [0026]-[0027], and [0149]-[0151]; KR’736, Pgs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the pouch film of WO’254 by selecting the layer thicknesses taught by US’647 to provide a total thickness of at least 153 μm and by incorporating KR’736’s PVDC-containing intermediate or sealant-layer configuration to increase electrical-insulation resistance and barrier properties. The modification would have improved protection against forming stresses and reduced electrical short-circuiting between the electrode tabs and metal layer, with the claimed insulation value representing the expected result of optimizing the disclosed insulating-layer composition and laminate thickness.
As to Claim 7:
WO’254 discloses the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 2 above;
WO’254 discloses a multilayer pouch film comprising a nylon base outer layer, an aluminum-alloy-foil barrier layer, an adhesive layer, an unstretched cast-polypropylene (“CPP”) layer, and a melt-extruded polypropylene (“PP”) layer (WO’254, Pgs. 2, 5, and 21-22); and
WO’254 discloses controlling the mechanical properties and stress-strain-curve gradient of the laminate to provide formability and resistance to deformation, deep-drawing stresses, and bending stresses during and after pouch formation (WO’254, Pgs. 3-4 and 21-22).
However, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a pouch film having a total thickness of at least 153 μm. WO’254 also does not expressly report that its pouch film provides a bending measurement value of at least 50 times, or at least 30 times and less than 50 times, according to the bending-evaluation procedure recited in claim 7.
US’647 discloses secondary-battery pouch films having total thicknesses of at least 153 μm. For example, Example 1-4 comprises a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum-foil layer, a 20 μm extruded modified-polypropylene adhesive layer, and a 40 μm unstretched-polypropylene sealant layer, providing a total thickness of 155 μm. Example 1-12 similarly provides a total thickness of 160 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0141]-[0146], Table 1).
US’647 further teaches that the pouch film preferably has a tensile elongation of at least 50% in both the MD and TD directions, thereby providing toughness against tensile stresses and inhibiting breakage during forming (US’647, [0008]-[0009] and [0028]). US’647 also discloses folding the packaging material over a battery element, heat-sealing its peripheral portions, and bending the pressure-heat-sealed side portions toward the formed recess to produce folded edge portions of the secondary battery (US’647, [0098]-[0103] and [0109]).
KR’736 discloses secondary-battery cell pouches comprising an outer layer, an aluminum metal layer, and a polypropylene sealant layer, and teaches incorporating PVDC into an intermediate or sealant layer to improve insulation resistance, barrier properties, and mechanical durability (KR’736, Pgs. 2-5).
KR’736 further discloses forming 30 mm × 40 mm × 6 mm-deep dummy pouch cells containing electrolyte and a tab region. After measuring insulation resistance, KR’736 folds the wing or sealing portion and subsequently measures insulation resistance to evaluate whether the pouch maintains its insulation integrity after repeated folding. KR’736 reports that its PVDC-containing examples maintain satisfactory insulation resistance through multiple folding evaluations and provide greater bending-associated insulation durability than the comparative pouch without PVDC (KR’736, Pgs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the pouch film of WO’254 by selecting the base-layer and laminate thicknesses taught by US’647 to provide a total thickness of at least 153 μm and by incorporating KR’736’s flexible, PVDC-containing polypropylene-layer configuration to improve bending endurance and preserve insulation integrity during folding of the sealed pouch edges. The claimed bending measurement would represent the expected mechanical performance of the combined pouch-film structure having the claimed layer thicknesses and Equation 1 parameters.
As to Claim 10:
WO’254 discloses the secondary battery encased with the secondary-battery pouch-film limitations of claims 1 and 9 as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above (WO’254, Pgs. 2-5 and 19-22);
WO’254 discloses positioning a power-storage-device element comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte within a package formed from the pouch film, with metal terminals extending outwardly, and heat-sealing the heat-fusible resin layers around the element to produce a sealed power-storage device (WO’254, Pg. 19);
WO’254 discloses that the pouch film is preferably used to encase secondary batteries, including lithium-ion and lithium-ion-polymer batteries (WO’254, Pgs. 19-20); and
WO’254 teaches that power-storage devices employing such pouch packaging are used in applications including electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles (WO’254, Pgs. 1-2).
However, WO’254 does not expressly disclose a secondary-battery pouch film having a total thickness of at least 153 μm.
US’647 discloses packaging materials for secondary batteries and electrical-storage devices having total thicknesses of at least 153 μm. For example, Example 1-4 comprises a 50 μm nylon base layer, a 5 μm adhesive layer, a 40 μm aluminum-foil layer, a 20 μm extruded modified-polypropylene adhesive layer, and a 40 μm unstretched-polypropylene sealant layer, providing a total thickness of 155 μm. Example 1-12 similarly provides a total thickness of 160 μm (US’647, [0011], [0035], [0117], [0128], [0139], and [0141]-[0146], Table 1).
US’647 further discloses encasing electrical-storage-device elements, including lithium secondary-battery elements, within the packaging material. US’647 teaches placing a battery element within a recess formed in the packaging material, folding the packaging material over the battery element, heat-sealing the peripheral portions, introducing electrolyte, and completing the heat-sealing operation to produce a secondary battery (US’647, [0003] and [0093]-[0109]).
KR’736 discloses flexible pouch packaging for encasing secondary-battery elements, including lithium-ion batteries, lithium-polymer batteries, and portable storage batteries. KR’736 teaches a pouch having an outer resin layer, an aluminum barrier layer, and a polypropylene sealant layer configured to provide insulation, electrolyte resistance, gas-barrier properties, and mechanical durability for the encased battery (KR’736, Pgs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to encase WO’254’s secondary battery for an electric vehicle or energy-storage application using a pouch film having a total thickness of at least 153 μm, as taught by US’647, while employing KR’736’s durable flexible-pouch teachings, to protect the metal layer against forming stresses and provide reliable battery encasement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
