DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki et al. (US 2020/0381679) in view of Nishida et al. (JP 2005-112994) as evidenced by Hu et al. (Polymer Composites, 37, pp 1049-1055).
Hiraki is directed to a battery packaging material comprising a polybutylene terephthalate film (paragraph 0001). The battery packaging material is molded to form a concave portion into which battery elements, such as electrodes and electrolytic solutions, are disposed (paragraphs 0004-0005). The packaging comprising a polybutylene terephthalate base material layer, a barrier layer, a cured resin layer, and a heat-sealable layer (paragraph 0011). An adhesive is optionally present between the polybutylene terephthalate base material layer and the barrier layer (paragraph 0043).
Hiraki does not teach the presence of an acid-modified polymer and an amorphous thermoplastic resin in the polybutylene terephthalate base material layer.
Nishida is directed to a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a thermoplastic polyester, a rubber-modified polystyrene resin, a maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin, and a flame retardant (paragraph 0006). The composition may contain a reinforcing filler, such as glass fibers (paragraph 0025). The composition may be used for manufacturing electrical equipment parts (paragraph 0002) and exhibits excellent mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy as well as little warpage (paragraph 0036). In the embodiment of Example 4, the composition comprises 60 parts polybutylene terephthalate, 10 parts of high impact polystyrene, 30 parts maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin, 56 parts glass fiber, 20 parts pentabromobenzyl polyacrylate, and 8 parts antimony oxide (Table 1). The maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin has a weight average molecular weight of 240,000 and a maleic anhydride content of 8-10 wt% (paragraph 0037). The maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin represents 30/(60+10+30+56+20+8) ≈ 16 wt% of the composition. As such, the composition would contain about 1.2 wt% acid (for a maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin having 8 wt% maleic anhydride) to about 1.6 wt% acid (for a maleic anhydride-modified polystyrene resin having 10 wt% maleic anhydride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition of Nishida as the polybutylene terephthalate base material layer of Hiraki since Nishida teaches that the composition may be used for manufacturing electrical parts and the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, the polybutylene terephthalate composition of Nishida is particularly suited for the molded packaging material of Hiraki since it exhibits little warpage and excellent dimensional stability.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the pentabromobenzyl polyacrylate (claim 1) and/or the high impact polystyrene (claims 1 and 12) correspond to the amorphous thermoplastic resin (C).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, the high impact polystyrene corresponds to the impact modifier comprising a core-shell elastomer (see the first paragraph of the Introduction of Hu describing high-impact polystyrene as having a core-shell structure.).
Regarding claim 19, Nishida teaches that the rubber-modified polystyrene resin may be a general-purpose polystyrene mixed with a copolymer formed by graft polymerizing styrene monomer in the presence of rubber (paragraph 0012). The general-purpose polystyrene reads on an amorphous thermoplastic resin comprising a styrenic resin while the copolymer formed by graft polymerizing styrene monomer in the presence of rubber (i.e., high impact polystyrene) reads on the core-shell elastomer.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki et al. (US 2020/0381679) in view of Nishida et al. (JP 2005-112994) as evidenced by Hu et al. (Polymer Composites, 37, pp 1049-1055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Packham (Adhesion Science and Engineering, vol. 37, pp 1049-1055).
Hiraki taken in view of Nishida suggest all the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, except for the arithmetic mean height of the polybutylene terephthalate film bonded to the barrier layer.
Packham discloses that the relevance of surface roughness to adhesion has long been recognized (page 317).
Since Packham shows that the relevance of surface roughness to adhesion has long been recognized, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughen the surface of the base material layer of Hiraki to improve the adhesion to the barrier layer or optional adhesive layer. Moreover, in the absence of any showing of criticality, it would have required no more than routine experimentation and ordinary skill to determine a suitable roughness and such experimentation would be expected to result in a surface having an arithmetic mean height satisfying the limitations of claim 10 since this arithmetic mean height is also chosen to improve adhesiveness (e.g., see paragraph 0018 on page 9 of the specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that, since the battery packaging material of Hiraki is designed to suppress warpage, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify it according to Nishida. The applicant asserts that modifying Hiraki according to Nishida would not only change the principle operation of Hiraki but also render Hiraki unsuitable for its intended operation.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the composition of Nishida as the polybutylene terephthalate base material layer of Hiraki since Nishida teaches that the composition may be used for manufacturing electrical parts and the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Rather than being unsuitable for use in Hiraki, one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of success employing the material of Nishida in the packaging of Hiraki as it also exhibits little warpage - a property explicitly desired by Hiraki. That the polybutylene terephthalate composition of Nishida also displays excellent dimensional stability offers further motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use this material in the packaging of Hiraki since the material would not only be expected to have the reduced warpage required by Hiraki but would also be expected to provide the resulting packaging with excellent dimensional stability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787