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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I corresponding to claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023, 06/14/2024, 03/14/2025, 05/28/2025, 01/26/202, and 05/07/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douke US20150372263A1
Regarding claim 1, Douke discloses a pouch for a secondary battery, comprising:
a barrier layer; a base material layer disposed on one surface of the barrier layer; and a sealant layer disposed on the other surface of the barrier layer (The battery packaging material according to the present invention includes a laminate including at least a base material layer 1, a metal layer 3 and a sealant layer 4 in this order [Para 0070])
the sealant layer comprising: a first sealant layer disposed directly in contact with the other surface of the barrier layer; and a second sealant layer disposed on the first sealant layer (The sealant layer 4 may be formed of a plurality of layers.[Para 104], the first sealant layer is a layer containing an acid-modified polyolefin and situated on the metal layer side [Para 0133] The second sealant layer is a layer which contains a polyolefin and which is laminated on the first sealant layer [Para 0145])
the sealant layer has a melt flow rate (MFR) of about 14.0 g/10 min or less, which is measured at a temperature of about 230° C under a load condition of about 2.16 kg (Further, the melt flow rate (MFR) of the sealant layer 4 at 230° C. is preferably 1.5 to 25 g/10 minutes [Para 0117] The melt flow rate of the sealant layer 4 is a value obtained by performing measurement using a melt flow measurement device in accordance with JIS K7210. [Para 0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of about 14.0 g/10 min or less because Douke teaches overlapping ranges for the melt flow rate (MFR) of the sealant layer (specifically 1.5 to 25 g/10 minutes at 230° C, measured in accordance to JIS K7210), and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Douke discloses wherein the sealant layer has a melt flow rate (MFR) of about 8.5 g/10 min to about 14.0 g/10 min, which is measured at the temperature of about 2300C under the load condition of about 2.16 kg (the melt flow rate (MFR) of the sealant layer 4 at 230° C. is preferably 1.5 to 25 g/10 minutes [Para. 0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of about 8.5 g/10 min to about 14.0 g/10 min because Douke teaches overlapping ranges for the melt flow rate (MFR) of the sealant layer (specifically 1.5 to 25 g/10 minutes at 230° C, measured in accordance to JIS K7210), and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Douke discloses wherein the first sealant layer and the second sealant layer have a co-extruded structure (When the sealant layer 4 is formed of two layers, for example, there is a method in which the adhesive layer 5 and one of the sealant layers 4 are co-extruded onto the metal layer 3 [Para 0315]).
Regarding claim 4, Douke discloses wherein the first sealant layer comprises an acid-modified polyolefin resin (The first sealant layer 4 a is a layer containing a polyolefin resin [Para 0268])
Regarding claim 5, Douke discloses wherein the second sealant layer comprises a polyolefin resin (The second sealant layer 4 b contains at least one of a polyolefin resin [Para 0280]).
Regarding claim 6, Douke discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of the second sealant layer to a thickness of the first sealant layer is in a range of about 0.8 to about 1.2 (the thickness of the first sealant layer 4 a in Example 16A is 15 μm. The thickness of the second sealant layer 4 b in Example 16A is 15 μm, which inherently discloses thickness ranges that yield a thickness ratio encompassing 1.0, thereby falling within the claimed range of about 0.8 to about 1.2 [Para 0357]).
Regarding claim 7, Douke discloses wherein the first sealant layer has a thickness of about 25 μm to about 80 μm, and the second sealant layer has a thickness of about 20 μm to about 80 μm (The thickness of the first sealant layer 4 a in Example 16A is 15 μm. The thickness of the second sealant layer 4 b in Example 16A is 15 μm [Para 0357])
Regarding claim 8, Douke discloses wherein a total thickness of the sealant layer is in a range of about 45 μm to about 100 μm (The thickness of the first sealant layer 4 a in Example 21Ba is 15 μm. The thickness of the second sealant layer 4 b in Example 21Ba is 15 μm. The thickness of the third sealant layer in Example 21Ba is 15 μm [Para 0369]which inherently provides a total combined sealant layer thickness spanning up to 45 μm, within the claimed range of about 45 μm to about 100 μm).
Regarding claim 9, Douke discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises an aluminum alloy layer (the metal layer 3 is a layer which is intended to improve the strength of the packaging material, and also functions as a barrier layer…. Specific examples of the metal that forms the metal layer 3 include metal foils such as those of aluminum, stainless steel and titanium. [Para 0096] It is preferred to use soft aluminum, for example annealed aluminum (JIS A8021P-O) or (JIS A8079P-O) [Para 0096])
Regarding claim 10, Douke discloses, wherein the base material layer comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic polymer, polyacrylonitrile, polyimide, polyamide, cellulose, aramid, nylon, polyester, polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazoles, polyarylates, Teflon, or a combination thereof (The material that forms the base material layer 1 is not particularly limited as long as it has insulation quality. Examples of the material that forms the base material layer 1 include polyesters, polyamides, epoxy resins, acrylic resins, fluororesins, polyurethanes, silicon resins, phenols, polyether imides, and polyimides and mixtures, copolymers and the like thereof [Para 0081-0083])
Regarding claim 11, Douke discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly, in which a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode are stacked; an electrolyte; and the pouch of claim 1 wherein the pouch defines a cup part accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ( a battery element including at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte is covered with the battery packaging material [Para 0329] The type of secondary battery to which the battery packaging material according to the present invention is applied is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include lithium ion batteries [Para 0330] The battery includes a separator [Para 0391])
Regarding claim 12, Douke discloses wherein cell vent resistance of the lithium secondary battery is about 7.7 bars or more at a temperature of about 60°C (the Battery Packaging Material is Unsealed after the Ambient Temperature Reaches a Set Temperature T° C. Fixed Between 100° C. And 160° C. [Para 0125] which inherently provides seal integrity and cell vent resistance of about 7.7 bars or more at the lower operating temperature of about 60°C)
Regarding claim 13, Douke discloses wherein an accelerated high-temperature storage period, which is measured by charging the lithium secondary battery up to SOC 100% at a temperature of about 70°C for 1-day intervals, is about 15 days or more. (the battery packaging material containing an electrolytic solution in its internal space maintains lamination strength and prevents delamination between the metal layer 3 and the sealant layer 4 due to the heat generated during storage at high temperature or charge-discharge of the battery at 85°C [Para 0326], which inherently imparts thermal and electrolyte durability to withstand an accelerated high-temperature storage period of about 15 days or more at about 70°C).
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.
Claim1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-11 of copending Application No. 19/701,080 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘080 which teaches a pouch for a secondary battery, comprising: a barrier layer; a base material layer disposed on one surface of the barrier layer; and a sealant layer disposed on the other surface of the barrier layer, the sealant layer comprising: a first sealant layer disposed directly in contact with the other surface of the barrier layer; and a second sealant layer disposed on the first sealant layer, and the sealant layer has a melt flow rate (MFR) of about 14.0 g/10 min or less, which is measured at a temperature of about 2300C under a load condition of about 2.16 kg.
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘080 which teaches wherein the sealant layer has a melt flow rate (MFR) of about 8.5 g/10 min to about 14.0 g/10 min, which is measured at the temperature of about 2300C under the load condition of about 2.16 kg.
Instant claim 3 is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘080
Instant claim 4 is anticipated by claim 3 of ‘080
Instant claim 5 is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘080
Instant claim 6 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘080
Instant claim 7 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘080
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘080 which teaches the pouch of claim 1, wherein the first sealant layer has a thickness of about 25 μm to about 80 μm, and the second sealant layer has a thickness of about 20 μm to about 80 μm, which directly yields a combination total thickness of the sealant layer within the claimed range of about 45 μm to about 100 μm.
Instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 7 of ‘080
Instant claim 10 is anticipated by claim 8 of ‘080
Instant claim 11 is anticipated by claim 9 of ‘080
Instant claim 12 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘080
Instant claim 13 is anticipated by claim 11 of ‘080
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB UCHECHUKWU ORJI whose telephone number is (571)270-3370. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am- 5:00pm ET Mon-Thur.
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, Joshua Allen, can be reached at telephone number 5712703176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for
unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have
questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CALEB U ORJI/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights