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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 -6 are pending in the current application and under consideration on the merits. Claims 7 – 11 were subject to a restriction requirement and have since been non-elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
The third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.290 submitted on 12/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Propylene Ethylene Rubber” is capitalized but is not at the beginning of the sentence or a proper noun. 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 – 6 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein a content ratio of propylene ethylene rubber (PER) in the inner resin layer is 10% or less”. What the ratio of content is in relation to is undefined. The ratio could be volume percent, weight percent, or some other property percent of the inner resin layer. Furthermore, as set forth above with respect to 35 USC 112(b), what the “content” refers to is also undefined. The content could be amount of propylene or ethylene in the propylene ethylene rubber, or the total amount of propylene ethylene rubber in the inner resin layer.
For purposes of examination the ratio is construed to be any relation of properties (e.g. mass or volume) of the propylene ethylene rubber to the identical property of the total inner resin layer (e.g. mass or volume). The term content is construed to refer to the total amount of propylene or ethylene in the propylene-ethylene rubber, or the total amount of propylene ethylene rubber in the inner resin layer, not individual co-polymers of the rubber in relation to the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein a length of the PER of the inner resin layer is 0.3 µm or more, or the length of the PER compared to the content ratio of the PER is 3.0 (µm/%) or more”. What the “length of the PER” is undefended. The length could refer to chain length of the PER molecules. Length could also refer to the thickness of a pure PER layer in a multilayered inner resin layer. For purposes of examination “length of the PER” is construed to refer to any size the PER could be measured by (e.g. chain length, particle size, or thickness of pure PER layer in a multilayered inner resin layer).
Claims 3 – 6 are rejected as including without solving the indefinite issues noted above.
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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara et al (US 11,128,004 B2), herein referred to as “Ogihara”, in further view of Imamoto et al. (US 10,573,855 B2), herein referred to as “Imamoto”..
Regarding claim 1, Ogihara discloses an exterior material (cell pouch) for a lithium-ion battery (secondary battery) wherein a substrate layer (outer resin layer), a metal layer (barrier layer), and a sealant layer (inner resin layer) are stacked in the listed order [col. 5 ln. 24 – 27, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3]. The substrate layer is comprised of a resin [col. 5 ln. 61 - 62]. The metal layer is a water vapor barrier and thus acts as a barrier layer [col. 8 ln. 12 - 14]. The sealant layer is comprised of a resin [col. 19 ln. 19 - 21]. The sealant layer further has embodiments wherein an ethylene-based elastomer is added to the layer [col. 22 ln. 55].
Oighara discloses the use of “ethylene-based elastomers”. Oighara further discloses the ethylene-based elastomer selected preferably has a melting point of 130 °C or less [col. 22 ln. 66 – 67, col. 23 ln. 1 – 10]. In the same field of endeavor of packaging materials for power storage devices, Imamoto discloses the use of propylene-ethylene random copolymer with a mass percent of ethylene in the range of 0.1% to 10% [col. 16 ln. 23 - 25]. See 112(b) discussion above for how this meets the claim limitation “wherein a content ratio of propylene ethylene rubber in the inner resin layer is 10% or less”. The propylene-ethylene random copolymer has a melting temperature of 120 to 145 °C [col. 16 ln. 37 - 43]. The propylene-ethylene random copolymer is an adhesive resin in the sealant layer [col. 12 ln. 33 - 44]. Therefore, it would be prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the propylene-ethylene random copolymer with a melting temperature of 120 °C for use in a sealant layer of Imamoto could be used as the ethylene-based elastomer with a melting point of 130 °C or less in a sealant layer of Oighara. See MPEP 2144.08.
In the alternative, the total content of the ethylene-based elastomer disclosed by Oighara is between 5% to 40% mass based on the total mass of the sealant layer [col. 23 ln. 28 - 32]. See 112(b) discussion above for how this meets the claim limitation “wherein a content ratio of propylene ethylene rubber in the inner resin layer is 10% or less”. See MPEP 2144.05 for obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated figure 1 of Ogihara for claim 1
Regarding claim 2, Ogihara, in further view of Imamoto, discloses the cell pouch described above in the rejection of claim 1. Ogihara further discloses the ethylene-based elastomer has a dispersed phase size of 200 nm (0.2 µm) or more [col. 22 ln. 47 - 53]. The dispersed phase size is the size of the selected elastomer (ethylene-propylene-diene rubber) in the sealant layer. See MPEP 2144.05 for obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.
Regarding claim 3, Ogihara, in further view of Imamoto, discloses the cell pouch described above in the rejection of claim 1. Ogihara further discloses embodiments wherein the exterior material electrolytic solution laminate strength is 9 N/15mm (917.74 gf/15mm) and greater [col. 39 ln. 35, Table 2]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple embodiments with a laminate strength of greater than 9 N/15mm (917.74 gf/15mm), as disclosed in table 2 of Ogihara, indicates embodiments wherein the laminate strength is 9.8 N/15mm (1000 gf/15mm). See MPEP 2144.05 for obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.
Regarding claim 4, Ogihara, in further view of Imamoto, discloses the cell pouch described above in the rejection of claim 1. Ogihara further discloses embodiments wherein the substrate layer (outer resin layer) comprises a multilayer resin film of two layers, stack upon each other [col. 5 ln. 62 - 64].
Regarding claim 5, Ogihara, in further view of Imamoto, discloses the cell pouch described above in the rejection of claim 4. Ogihara further discloses a corrosion prevention treatment layer between the sealant layer and metal foil layer [col. 5 ln. 35 - 49]. The purposes of the corrosion prevention treatment layer is to prevent corrosion of the metal foil layer (barrier layer) [col. 9 ln. 7 - 14]. Additionally, Ogihara disclose the corrosion prevention treatment layer can be a multi-layered structure wherein, both sides of the metal foil layer are coated in the first layer of the corrosion prevention treatment layer, and a second corrosion prevention treatment layer is layered atop the side of the treated metal foil facing the sealant layer (inner resin layer) [col. 31 ln. 18 - 45]. However, if both sides of the metal foil are coated in the first layer of the corrosion prevention treatment layer, therein lies an embodiment where a layer of corrosion prevention treatment is placed between the metal foil (barrier layer) and substrate layer (outer resin layer) thereby creating a second corrosion prevention treatment layer between the metal foil and substrate layers.
Regarding claim 6, Ogihara, in further view of Imamoto, discloses the cell pouch described above in the rejection of claim 5. Ogihara further discloses a first adhesive layer between the substrate layer (outer resin layer) and metal foil layer (barrier layer) [col 5 ln. 35 - 49]. Notably, the metal foil layer has embodiments wherein a first layer of corrosion prevention treatment layer is coated upon each side, thus placing the first adhesive layer between the substrate layer (outer resin layer) and corrosion prevention treatment layer (second surface treatment layer). Additionally, Ogihara discloses embodiments wherein the substrate layer (outer resin layer) comprises two-layers [col. 5 ln. 62 – 67, col. 6 ln. 1 - 2]. The two layers are coextruded using an adhesive resin [col. 6 ln. 1 - 2]. Thus, Ogihara disclose embodiments wherein an adhesive resin is placed between the two layers of the substrate layer (outer resin layer).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated figure 1 of Ogihara for claim 6
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 - 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/606,230 . The difference between the claim sets lies in the fact that the entire scope of copending claims 1 – 5 fall within the scope of the present claims. Thus, copending claims 1 - 5 are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the present claims.
Regarding claim 1, the species of the copending claims require an aluminum adhesive layer, a core layer, and a sealing layer in the inner resin layer which is not found in present claims 1 - 6. It is noted the present claims use the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03(I) for further discussion on transitional phases. The aluminum adhesive layer, a core layer, and a sealing layer in the inner resin layer are merely unrecited elements in the present claims. The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1, claim 2 of the copending application claims an electrolyte peeling strength of 1000 (gf/15mm). Therefore, the species of copending application claim 2 anticipates claim 3 of the present application, which includes the genus from claim 1, and an electrolyte peeling strength of 1000 (gf/15mm).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1, claim 3 of the copending application claims the outer resin layer with a first and second outer resin layer sequentially laminated. Therefore, the species of copending application claim 3 anticipates claim 4 of the present application, which includes the genus from claim 1, and an outer resin layer with a first and second outer resin layer sequentially laminated.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 4, claim 4 of the copending application claims a first surface treatment layer formed between the inner resin layer and the barrier layer, and a second surface treatment layer is formed between the barrier layer and the first outer resin layer. Therefore, the species of copending application claim 4 anticipates claim 5 of the present application, which includes the genus from claim 4, and a first surface treatment layer formed between the inner resin layer and the barrier layer, and a second surface treatment layer is formed between the barrier layer and the first outer resin layer.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 5, claim 5 of the copending application claims a first adhesive layer formed between the second surface treatment layer and the first outer resin layer, and a second adhesive layer is formed between the first outer resin layer and the second outer resin layer. Therefore, the species of copending application claim 5 anticipates claim 6 of the present application, which includes the genus from claim 5, and claims a first adhesive layer formed between the second surface treatment layer and the first outer resin layer, and a second adhesive layer is formed between the first outer resin layer and the second outer resin layer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/050,270.
Regarding claim 1, The copending claim requires a storage portion concavely processed on one side to accommodate an electrode assembly, and a second outer layer which are not found in the present claim 1. It is noted the present claims use the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03(I) for further discussion on transitional phases. The storage portion concavely processed on one side to accommodate an electrode assembly, and a second outer layer are merely unrecited elements in the present claims. Furthermore, the propylene ethylene rubber content of the inner resin layer of 5% to 40% in claim 1 of the copending application is obvious in view of claim 1 of the present application which claims a propylene ethylene rubber content of 10% or less, due to the overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1, claim 1 of the copending application claims a first and second outer layer. Therefore, copending application claim 1 is obvious in view of claim 4 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Chun et al. (US 2022/0271373 A1) discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery and a method for manufacturing the aluminum pouch film are disclosed. The aluminum pouch film includes an aluminum layer; an outer resin layer formed on a first surface of the aluminum layer; an inner resin layer formed on a second surface of the aluminum layer; and an adhesive layer for adhering the aluminum layer to the inner resin layer, wherein the outer resin layer includes a copolymer of polyamide and polyimide.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0295316 A1) discloses a pouch-shaped battery case configured to receive an electrode assembly having a separator interposed between positive and negative electrodes, together with an electrolytic solution, the pouch-shaped battery case including an outer coating layer defining an outer surface of the battery case and configured to protect the electrode assembly from an outside of the battery case, the outer coating layer made of a polymer resin, a metal barrier layer located between the outer coating layer and an inner surface of the battery case, the metal barrier layer having high moisture-blocking efficiency and high thermal conductivity, and an inner sealant layer located between the metal barrier layer and an inner surface of the battery case, the inner sealant layer made of a polymer resin that has high thermal fusibility, the metal barrier layer includes a first metal that has high formability and a second metal that has high rigidity.
Shim et al. (US 2024/0079688 A1) discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery is disclosed. The aluminum pouch film contains an aluminum film layer; an outer resin layer laminated on one surface of the aluminum film layer; and an inner resin layer laminated on the other surface of the aluminum film layer. The inner resin layer contains a polyolefin resin, an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and an ionomer resin.
Gu et al. (US 2016/0087250 A1) discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery and a manufacturing method thereof, the aluminum pouch film including: an aluminum layer; an outer resin layer formed on the first surface of the aluminum layer; a first adhesive layer for adhering the aluminum layer to the outer resin layer; an inner resin layer formed on the second surface of the aluminum layer; and a second adhesive layer for adhering the aluminum layer to the inner resin layer.
Murata et al. (US 2022/0399570 A1) discloses a packaging material for solid-state batteries according to one aspect of the present disclosure contains sulfide-based solid electrolytes, including at least a substrate layer, a barrier layer, and a sealant layer in this order, in which at least one of the layers constituting the packaging material contains a color developer that changes color when reacting with hydrogen sulfide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/J.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
