DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, 21 and 22 are pending review in this action.
The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “a difference between a rupture energy measured along a machine direction … and a rupture energy measured along a transverse direction …”.
Claim 21 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a difference between a rupture energy measured along a machine direction … and a rupture energy measured along a transverse direction …”.
For consistency and to avoid ambiguity, the limitation in claim 21 should be edited to read: “the difference between the rupture energy measured along the machine direction … and the rupture energy measured along the transverse direction …”
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “a difference between a rupture energy measured along a machine direction … and a rupture energy measured along a transverse direction …”.
Claim 22 depends on claim 10. Claim 10 defines “a difference between a rupture energy measured along a machine direction … and a rupture energy measured along a transverse direction …”.
For consistency and to avoid ambiguity, the limitation in claim 22 should be edited to read: “the difference between the rupture energy measured along the machine direction … and the rupture energy measured along the transverse direction …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0237882, hereinafter Unno as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0009312, hereinafter Unno ‘312 and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0162836, hereinafter Ibaragi.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Unno teaches a lithium-ion battery (“secondary battery”) comprising a pouch-type case (paragraphs [0036, 0003]). Every lithium-ion battery includes an electrode assembly. The electrode assembly would necessarily be housed within the case.
The pouch-type case includes a pouch film laminate comprising a nylon or polyester film (“base material layer”), a stainless steel foil (“gas barrier layer”) and a polypropylene film (“sealant layer”). The stainless steel foil (“gas barrier layer”) is positioned between the nylon or polyester film (“base material layer”) and the polypropylene film (“sealant layer”) (paragraph [0099]).
Unno teaches that the stainless steel foil is to be used in a battery case and would be subjected to equibiaxial tensile deformation during the process of forming the case (paragraph [0013]). For the purpose of ensuring that it would not fail under such conditions, Unno teaches processing the stainless steel foil to provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction in the plane of the foil and minimize deformation anisotropy in stretch forming (paragraphs [0013, 0014, 0023, 0053]).
Unno’s stainless steel is austenitic stainless steel, such as SUS 304 (paragraphs [0040, 0092]).
Unno does not report: 1) a difference in rupture energy along the TD and MD of the stainless steel foil; and 2) explicit values for the rupture energies along the TD and MD of the stainless steel foil.
Regarding 1), given that rupture energy is the energy required to rupture the foil under tension, it is expected that Unno’s foil which is engineered to minimize tensile deformation anisotropy and provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction would have a difference in rupture energy along the claimed directions of either zero or close to zero.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the processing of the stainless steel such that the rupture energy difference along the TD and MD is either zero or close to zero for the purpose of ensuring that the stainless steel foil would not fail when subjected to equal tensile deformation along both directions during formation of the battery case.
Regarding 2), the Unno ‘312 reference shares inventors with Unno and is directed to a stainless steel foil of the same thickness and composition as Unno’s (paragraphs [0042, 0067]) and produced under the same annealing temperature (paragraph [0064]). The stainless steel foil in Unno ‘312 is also intended for use in a battery case (paragraph [0040]). Unno ‘312 teaches that a desirable elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) for such a stainless steel foil is greater than 20% (paragraph [0062-0064]). Unno ‘312 further reports that the elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) has a practical upper limit of 50% (paragraphs [0064-0065]).
The Ibaragi reference also shares inventors with Unno and teaches a comparable steel foil for use in a battery case. Ibaragi teaches that a desirable tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) for such a steel foil is in the range 200 MPa to 1200 MPa (paragraph [0111]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the stainless steel foil has an elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) of greater than 20% and up to 50% along both the TD and MD and a tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) along both the TD and MD in the range 200 MPa to 1200 MPa for the purpose of having optimal tensile strength properties for use in the battery case.
The fracture/rupture energy of a material is a property closely related to and dependent on the material’s tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) and its elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”). Moreover, the stainless steel foil in the combination of Unno, Unno ‘312 and Ibaraki is formed of the same type of stainless steel and has the same thickness as instantly disclosed. It further has a tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) and elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) overlapping with the tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) and elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) of the instantly disclosed stainless steel. It is thus expected to have a rupture energy at least overlapping with the instantly disclosed range.
The optimum range for the rupture energy in the combination of Unno as modified by Unno ‘312 and Ibaraki overlaps the instant application's optimum range of greater than or equal to 14,300 J along MD and greater than or equal to 13,000 J along TD. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 12 and 14 Unno teaches that the stainless steel foil is to be used in a battery case and would be subjected to equibiaxial tensile deformation during the process of forming the case (paragraph [0013]). For the purpose of ensuring that it would not fail under such conditions, Unno teaches processing the stainless steel foil to provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction in the plane of the foil and minimize deformation anisotropy in stretch forming (paragraphs [0013, 0014, 0023, 0053]).
Unno as modified by Unno ‘312 and Ibaragi does not report on the difference in tensile rupture elongation and the difference in tensile rupture strength along the TD and MD of the stainless steel foil.
However, given that tensile rupture elongation and tensile rupture strength are properties of the material under tension, it is expected that Unno’s foil which is engineered to minimize tensile deformation anisotropy and provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction would have a difference in tensile rupture elongation and tensile rupture strength along the claimed directions of either zero or close to zero.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the processing of the stainless steel foil such that the tensile rupture elongation and tensile rupture strength differences along the TD and MD are either zero or close to zero for the purpose of ensuring that the stainless steel foil would not fail when subjected to equal tensile deformation along both directions during formation of the battery case.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Unno as modified by Unno ‘312 teaches that the stainless steel foil has an elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) of greater than 20% and up to 50% (Unno ‘312’s paragraphs [0062-0065]).
Given that elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) is a property of the material under tension, it is expected that Unno’s foil which is engineered to minimize tensile deformation anisotropy and provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction would have an elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) of greater than 20% and up to 50% along both the TD and MD.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the processing of the stainless steel foil such that the elongation at break (“tensile rupture elongation length”) would be greater than 20% and up to 50% along both the TD and MD for the purpose of ensuring that the stainless steel foil would not fail when subjected to equal tensile deformation along both directions during formation of the battery case.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Unno as modified by Ibaragi teaches a tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) in the range 200 MPa to 1200 MPa (Ibaragi’s paragraph [0111]).
Given that tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) is a property of the material under tension, it is expected that Unno’s foil which is engineered to minimize tensile deformation anisotropy and provide excellent stretch formability in an arbitrary direction would have a tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) in the range 200 MPa to 1200 MPa along both the TD and MD.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the processing of the stainless steel foil such that the tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) would be in the range 200 MPa to 1200 MPa along both the TD and MD for the purpose of ensuring that the stainless steel foil would not fail when subjected to equal tensile deformation along both directions during formation of the battery case.
The optimum range for the tensile strength (“tensile rupture strength”) in the combination of Unno as modified by Ibaragi overlaps the instant application's optimum range of greater than or equal to 400 MPa along MD and TD. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Unno teaches that the stainless steel foil (“gas barrier layer”) has a thickness in the range 5 µm to 60 µm (paragraph [0042]). In specific examples, Unno teaches thicknesses of 30 µm, 40 µm and 60 µm (Table 1).
Claims 7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0237882, hereinafter Unno, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0009312, hereinafter Unno ‘312 and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0162836, hereinafter Ibaragi as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0019502, hereinafter Iizuka.
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 16, Unno teaches that the stainless steel foil (“gas barrier layer”) has a thickness in the range 5 µm to 60 µm (paragraph [0042]). Unno does not report the thicknesses of the nylon/polyester film (“base material layer”) and the polypropylene film (“sealant layer”).
Unno teaches that the laminate is used for a battery case (paragraphs [0003, 0013]).
Unno fails to teach a thickness of the laminate.
Iizuka teaches a battery case, which is a laminate including a nylon substrate (15, “base material layer”), a stainless steel barrier layer (13) and a polypropylene sealant film (11) (abstract, paragraphs [0046, 0048, 0054-0056, 0122] and figures 1 and 5). Iizuka teaches that suitable thicknesses for the layers are as follows: nylon substrate (15, “base material layer”) – 2 µm to 50 µm (paragraphs [0128, 0130]), stainless steel barrier layer (13) – 5 µm to 50 µm (paragraph [0058]) and polypropylene sealant film (11) - 1 µm to 50 µm (paragraph [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Unno’s layers with thicknesses as taught by Iizuka for the purpose of forming the battery case laminate.
Within the scope of the combination of Unno and Iizuka is a laminate with a thickness of 150 µm. A stainless steel barrier layer (13) with a thickness of 50 µm within this laminate would represent 33% of the total thickness.
The optimum range for the laminate thickness and the fraction of barrier layer thickness overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 80 µm to 300 µm and 10% to 50%, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes a general argument that the rupture strength depends on the shape of the stress-strain curve and not only on the tensile rupture strength and tensile rupture elongation %.
The same point was made in the previous office action. However, as also pointed out in the previous office action, the cited combination of references teaches rupture strengths up to 1200 MPa and rupture elongations up to 50%. It is not expected that the stress-strain curve could vary in shape so much that Unno’s austenitic stainless steel foil having a rupture strength approaching 1200 MPa and a rupture elongation close to 50% would not have rupture energies within the claimed ranges. Applicant was invited to provide evidence to the contrary if available, but has not done so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724