DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/431530, “Pouch Film And Secondary Battery”, / was filed with the USPTO on 2/2/24 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 2/3/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 7/20/26.
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 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification (e.g. published paragraph [0027]) indicates that the term about is included “to prevent infringers from unfairly using the disclosed contents in which precise or absolute figures provided to aid the understanding of the present disclosure are mentioned”; however, this also leaves the scope of the claim unclear as “about” is intentionally imprecise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (WO 2021/251736; citations taken from US 2023/0207931) and Murata (US 2016/0059520).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kim teaches a pouch film laminate (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraphs [0042, 0056]) comprising: a first base layer (item 1353), a second base layer (item 1354), a gas barrier layer (item 1352) and a sealant layer (item 1351) which are sequentially stacked (see Fig. 2).
Kim does not appear to teach wherein a moisture content index [as defined by Formula 1] of the second base layer is about 17,000 ppm • g/cm3 or less, or wherein a wherein a moisture content per unit weight of the pouch film laminate is about 1,500 ppm or less as required by claim 2.
In the battery art, Murata teaches that since lithium ion cells are influenced by moisture, it is conventional to include in the fabrication process a step of removing moisture, such as by storing in a high temperature and/or low pressure environment for several hours to several days, with more severe conditions applied when a lower moisture content is desired (paragraphs [0010-0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include moisture removal steps in both the fabrication process of the base film and sealing process when the base film is applied to a battery cell, such that the moisture content of the of the pouch film is made as low as possible for the benefit of protecting the cell from unwanted influence by moisture as taught by Murata. The claimed range is found to be obvious because the cited art teaches configuring the film such that the moisture content is made to be low, and teaches balancing the extremity of the drying process (e.g. increasing temperature or time) with the amount of residual moisture that is acceptable for a given application, making the residual moisture content a result-effective variable with low moisture suggested by the prior art, as does the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a thickness of the first base layer is 5 to 25 μm (paragraph [0080]). The claimed range of about 10 μm to 50 μm is found to be obvious for overlapping the range suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 4-5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the first base layer may include a polyester-based film, including a material such as polyethyleneterephthalate (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a thickness of the second base layer is about 10 μm to 50 μm (“20 μm to 50 μm”, paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the second base layer may include a polyamide such as nylon (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a thickness of the gas barrier layer is about 30 μm to 100 μm (“50 μm to 70 μm”, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the gas barrier layer contains aluminum (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a thickness of the sealant layer is about 30 μm to 130 μm (“70 μm to 100 μm”, paragraph [0010])
Regarding claim 13, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches a pouch-type battery casing manufactured by molding the pouch film laminate according to claim 1 (Figure 1 item 13).
Regarding claim 14, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Kim further teaches a pouch-type secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly accommodated in the pouch-type battery casing according to claim 13 (Fig. 1 item 14 accommodated in item 13).
Regarding claims 15-20, the structural features recited in the claim are taught or suggested by the prior art as previously described in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-7. Kim further teaches a method of manufacturing the pouch film laminate comprising steps such as obtaining the components of the pouch film laminate and stacking the components (the obtaining and stacking steps are implicitly taught by the structure of Fig. 2; see also paragraphs [0088-0089]).
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (WO 2021/251736; citations taken from US 2023/0207931) and Murata (US 2016/0059520) and Naka (US 2022/0149479).
Regarding claim 8-9, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the second base layer may include a polyamide such as nylon (paragraph [0082]), and that the pouch film is assembled on a battery by a thermal fusing technique (paragraph [0048]), but does not specify the type of nylon, such as by teaching that the nylon may be a species among those claimed such as nylon 6,6, or teach that the nylon has melting temperature of the second base layer is 220° C or more. .
In the battery art, Naka teaches a pouch film laminate comprising a base resin layer comprising nylon film (paragraph [0115]), and further teaches that the base resin film desirably is made of a resin having a higher melting point or glass transition temperature than the thermal fusion resin layer, and teaches nylon 6,6 as a suitable type of nylon for such applications (“a nylon 66 film”, paragraph [0115]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select nylon 6,6 as the nylon species since nylon 6,6 has a high melting point [264° C is the melting point of nylon 6,6] making it suitable for the thermal fusion process and is taught by Naka as a suitable species of the generic nylon.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Nishiyama (WO 2021/1235163; US 2023/0093098) teaches it conventional to configure a sealing process such that the sealing process involves “removing moisture in a laminate film as much as possible” (paragraph [0019]).
Lee (US 2021/0036269) teaches a pouch film comprising a base layer, which may include two layers, a gas barrier layer and a sealant layer sequentially stacked.
Murata (US 2022/0029225) teaches nylon 6 as a preferred pouch materail from the viewpoint of good heat resistance, piercing strength, and impact strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights