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 .
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, 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2023095817 (to Taichi et al.) – cited on IDS.
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Taichi teaches a cell pouch/(packaging material) for a secondary battery/(power storage) (para. [0076]) comprising:
an inner resin layer/(polypropylene composite film) (para. [0076]);
a barrier layer/(aluminum foil); and
an outer resin layer/(PET-BO / adhesive / ONy) (para. [0076]),
wherein the inner resin layer, the barrier layer, and the outer resin layer are
sequentially laminated (para. [0076]),
wherein the inner resin layer/(polypropylene composite film) (para. [0076]) comprises an aluminum adhesive layer/(laminate layer), a core layer/(base layer), and a sealing layer/(seal layer) sequentially laminated (see claim 1),
wherein propylene ethylene rubber (PER) contents of the aluminum adhesive
layer, the core layer, and the sealing layer are respectively X, Y, and Z, with 0
≤X+Y+Z≤30%, 0≤X≤20%, and 0≤Y≤30%, where is a factor inversely proportional
to an electrolyte resistance, and Y is a factor proportional to a formability – (Table 1 - Example 6, wherein PER is present in the laminate layer at 5% (represented by X), and in the base layer at 15% (represented by Y), and in the seal layer at 0% (represented by Z), which satisfies the instantly claimed conditions above ([0032], and claims 2-3).
With respect to claims 3 and 8, Taichi teaches wherein the outer resin layer/(PET-BO / adhesive / ONy) (para. [0076]) comprises a first outer resin layer/(ONy) and a second outer resin layer/(PET-BO) sequentially laminated.
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Taichi teaches wherein a first surface treatment/(chemical conversion treatment) layer is formed between the inner resin layer/(polypropylene composite film) (para. [0076]) and the barrier layer/(aluminum foil) (since the aluminum foil is chemically treated on both sides) (para. [0076]), and a second surface treatment/(chemical conversion treatment) layer is formed between the barrier layer/(aluminum foil) (since the aluminum foil is chemically treated on both sides) and the first outer resin layer/(ONy) (para. [0076]).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Taichi teaches wherein a first adhesive layer is formed between the second surface treatment layer (since the aluminum foil is chemically treated on both sides) and the first outer resin layer/(ONy) (para. [0076]), and a second adhesive layer is formed between the first outer resin layer/(ONy) and the second outer resin layer/(PET-BO) (para. [0076]).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2023095817 (to Taichi et al.), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of JP 5481765 (hereinafter JP’765) – cited on IDS.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Taichi discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein an electrolyte peeling strength is (10 N/15mm) (para. [0079]) which is equal to 1000 (gf/15mm) and therefore touches the instantly claimed range of 1000 (gf/15mm) or more. Taichi fails to teach wherein a limit forming depth of the cell pouch is 7.0 mm or more.
JP’765 teaches a battery packaging material having a limit forming depth of 7 mm (claim 1), which touches the instantly claimed range of 7.0 mm or more, in order to provide an optimal limit forming depth of the cell pouch/packaging material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a limit forming depth of 7.0 mm in the cell pouch of Taichi, as taught by JP’765, in order to provide an optimal limit forming depth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 9/12/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights