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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-13 and 15 in the reply filed on 13 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden in examining the claims. Applicant further argues that the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. Applicant’s traversal is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather, subject to the unity of invention analysis, previously set forth in the Restriction Requirement dated 29 June 2026 [¶11-16], in accordance with PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2. It is respectfully noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in the unity of invention analysis.
In view of the foregoing, and given that Applicant did not distinctly and specifically identify any errors in the restriction requirement, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application, claims 14 and 16-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-13 and 15 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s Specification are to the published application US 2024/0356124 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 15, “an adhesive film for metal terminal” constitutes improper grammar, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “an adhesive film for a metal terminal.”
Regarding claims 1-13 and 15, every instance of “the adhesive film for metal terminal” constitutes awkward and/or improper wording, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested in each instance: “the adhesive film
Regarding claim 15, “…attached to a metal terminal” constitutes awkward and/or improper wording, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “…attached to [[a]]the metal terminal.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 1-2, 5-7, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki et al. (WO 2019/244971 A1; “Hiraki”) (previously cited, copy and machine translation provided previously).
Regarding claim 1, Hiraki discloses an adhesive film for a metal terminal [0009, 0011] interposed between a metal terminal electrically connected to an electrode of a battery element and a wrapping material sealing the battery element (an adhesive film for metal terminal, which is to be interposed between a metal terminal electrically connected to an electrode of a power storage device element and a power storage device packaging material for sealing the power storage device element) [0013, 0015].
The adhesive film comprises a resin layer having a polyolefin skeleton [0019-0020, 0024], of which further comprises a laminate of at least a polypropylene layer and an acid-modified polypropylene layer [0019-0020, 0024], wherein the acid-modified polypropylene layer is located on the side of the metal terminal [0020-0021] thereby, in totality, reading on the adhesive film for metal terminal comprises a laminate comprising at least an acid-modified polyolefin layer for forming a metal terminal-facing surface and a polyolefin layer for forming a power storage device packaging material-facing surface.
The arithmetic mean surface roughness (Ra) on both surface sides of the adhesive film is each between 0.5-18 μm [0038]. Therefore, through calculation, a relationship of arithmetic mean surface roughness between the two surfaces is in the range of 0.03-36, of which overlaps with the claimed relationship, RaA/RaB > 1.2, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and in totality, reading on a ratio of arithmetic surface roughness RaA (μm) of the metal terminal-facing surface of the acid-modified polyolefin layer to arithmetic surface roughness RaB (μm) of the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer satisfies the relationship: RaA/RaB > 1.2.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the arithmetic surface roughness RaB (μm) defined by claim 2. The arithmetic mean surface roughness (Ra) on both surface sides of the adhesive film is each between 0.5-18 μm [0038], of which overlaps with the claimed arithmetic surface roughness RaB, 0.6 μm or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the adhesive film that comprises a resin layer having a polyolefin skeleton including a polypropylene layer and an acid-modified polypropylene layer [0019], may further contain lubricants [0068-0071], wherein the lubricant content in the entire adhesive film is about 0 to 2000 ppm [0069], of which overlaps with the claimed lubricant content, 1500 ppm or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and in totality, reads on at least one of the acid-modified polyolefin layer and the polyolefin layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the polypropylene layer is composed of, inter alia random polypropylene (the polyolefin layer contains at least one of random polypropylene and a terpolymer composed of ethylene-propylene-butene) [0048, 0050].
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the acid-modified polypropylene layer is a layer made of acid-modified polypropylene [0055], wherein the polypropylene to be acid-modified include, inter alia random polypropylene [0059], thereby, in totality reading on the acid-modified polyolefin layer contains acid-modified random polypropylene, as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the thickness of the adhesive film for metal terminals is more preferably about 55 to 180 μm [0025], of which is within the claimed range, 50 μm or more and 250 μm or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses a packaging material is a laminated structure consisting of a laminated sheet having at least a base layer [element 31, 0088, FIG. 6], a barrier layer [element 33, 0088, FIG. 6], and a heat-sealable (heat-fusible) resin layer [element 34, 0088, FIG. 6] in that order [0088], wherein the base material layer is the outermost layer and the heat-sealable resin layer is the innermost layer [0089, 0102], thereby, in totality, reading on the power storage device packaging material comprises a laminate comprising at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order from an outer side, as claimed.
The resin component used in the heat-sealable resin layer includes polyolefins [0103], like those in the polypropylene layer [0104] (MPEP 2144.07), thereby reading on a resin forming the heat-sealable resin layer is identical to a resin forming the polyolefin layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the adhesive film for metal terminals may contain a pigment (the adhesive film for metal terminal contains a pigment) [0074].
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, Hiraki further discloses that the pigment is, inter alia carbon (carbon, graphite) and titanium dioxide, thereby, reading on the pigment is at least one of a black pigment and a white pigment, as claimed.
Moreover, the pigment in is an amount about 0.05 to 0.3 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the resin component forming the resin layer having a polyolefin skeleton (the pigment content in a layer containing the pigment) [0075], of which overlaps with the claimed range, 0.05% by mass or more and 5.00% by mass or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity. Hiraki discloses a metal terminal with an adhesive film for a metal terminal (a metal terminal with an adhesive film for a metal terminal) [0001], comprising the adhesive film for a metal terminal set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. The adhesive film is placed between the metal terminal and a heat-sealable resin layer [0005, 0036, 0083-0084, 0087], and exhibits high adhesion to metal terminals [0007-0011], thereby, in totality, reading on the adhesive film for metal terminal is attached to a metal terminal, as claimed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, in view of Azuma et al. (US 2019/0081284 A1; “Azuma”).
Regarding claim 3, Hiraki discloses the adhesive film for metal terminal set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Hiraki remains silent regarding the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer has a gloss GuB (GU) of 15 GU or more as measured at an incidence angle of 60°.
Azuma is directed to an electrode assembly comprising an adhesive tape, insulators, and insulating tapes [0023]. Azuma teaches that each of the adhesive tape, insulators, and insulating tapes have a gloss of not less than 10 GU [0035-0036], measured with an incident angle of 60° [0081].
Hiraki and Azuma each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------an adhesive film. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polypropylene layer (the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer) of Hiraki so that it exhibits a gloss of not less than 10 GU measured with an incident angle of 60°, in order to exhibit superior properties, where foreign matter does not adhere and so it is easier to find as it has sufficient surface gloss [Azuma, 0036-0037], wherein the gloss may be adjusted based on use of a mold during manufacturing [Azuma, 0037], and/or by bringing a surface-fabricated roll into contact with a surface of a base material when the base material is manufactured [Azuma, 0037] (see MPEP 2144.05(II) and 2144.05(II)(B)).
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the polypropylene layer of Hiraki as modified by Azuma (hereinafter “modified Hiraki”) would have a gloss of not less than 10 GU measured with an incident angle of 60°, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 15 GU or more as measured at an incidence angle of 60°, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and in totality, reads on the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer, as claimed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2017/0155101 A1; “Mochizuki”)
Regarding claim 4, Hiraki discloses the adhesive film for metal terminal set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Hiraki remains silent regarding a dynamic friction coefficient μB of the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer and a dynamic friction coefficient μA of the metal terminal-facing surface of the acid-modified polyolefin layer are both in a range of 0.1 to 0.5, as measured in accordance with the conditions in 8.1 Film to Film of JIS K 7125: 1999.
Mochizuki is directed to a battery packaging material [0001, comprising an adhesive resin layer laminated between a metal layer and a sealant layer [0014, 0038, 0051-0056]. Mochizuki teaches that a surface of a base material layer has a dynamic friction coefficient of 0.3 or less, as measured by a method conforming to JIS K7125 [0047].
Hiraki and Mochizuki each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – an ------adhesive film. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive film of Hiraki so that the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer and the metal terminal-facing surface of the acid-modified polyolefin layer exhibit a dynamic friction coefficient of 0.3 or less, as measured by a method conforming to JIS K7125, as the base material layer of Mochizuk includes an adhesive, wherein adhesive compositions of Mochizuk comprises polyolefin and/or acid-modified polyolefin [Mochizuki, 0046, 0054] (see MPEP 2144.07), in order to improve moldability [Mochizuki, 0047], wherein friction of the base material layer may be reduced by means of a matting treatment and/or formation of a coating layer of a lubricant, which, in turn, impacts the dynamic friction coefficient value [Mochizuki, 0047] (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the power storage device packaging material-facing surface of the polyolefin layer and the metal terminal-facing surface of the acid-modified polyolefin layer of Hiraki as modified by Mochizuk (hereinafter “modified Hiraki”) would have a dynamic friction coefficient of 0.3 or less, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 0.1 to 0.5, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, in view of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized, and therefore known the specific conditions that must be used for JIS K7125 in order to obtain a dynamic friction coefficient of 0.3 or less, wherein such experimentation would have resulted in the testing of different conditions, of which would have encompassed and, thereby renders prima facie obvious, the claimed testing conditions of 8.1 Film to Film (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, in view of Takada (JP 2015232945 A; herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, “Takada”).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiraki further discloses that the polypropylene layer and the acid-modified polypropylene layer may each consist of multiple layers, each with different materials [0049, 0051, 0061]. At least one of the polypropylene layers may be homopolypropylene [0048], and at least one of the acid-modified polypropylene layers may be homopolypropylene [0059].
However, Hiraki remains silent regarding an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polyolefin layer and the polyolefin layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains homopolypropylene.
Takada is directed towards a terminal film for an energy storage device interposed between a packaging material that packages the body of the energy storage device and a metal terminal that is electrically connected to the body of the energy storage device [0001, 0009], comprising an adhesive layer [0049, 0056, 0098]. Takada teaches an intermediate layer [element 33. 0070, FIGs. 1 and 3] containing a polyolefin block copolymer and is located between a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer [0070, 0077]. The polyolefin block copolymer includes homopolypropylene [0071, 0077].
Hiraki and Takada each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – an ------adhesive film. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive film of Hiraki so that there is an intermediate layer containing homopolypropylene between the acid-modified polypropylene layer and the polypropylene layer, in order to improve adhesion, achieve heat resistance and low-temperature fusion properties, and to prevent leakage when energy storage devices are kept in high-temperature environments for extended periods [Takada, 0074-0075, 0077].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the adhesive film of Hiraki as modified by Takada (hereinafter “modified Hiraki”) would have had an intermediate layer containing homopolypropylene between the acid-modified polypropylene layer and the polypropylene layer (an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polyolefin layer and the polyolefin layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains homopolypropylene).
Regarding claim 9, Hiraki discloses the adhesive film for metal terminal set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Hiraki remains silent regarding an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polyolefin layer and the polyolefin layer, wherein the adhesive film for metal terminal satisfies the relationship: the thickness of the intermediate layer > the thickness of the acid-modified polyolefin layer > the thickness of the polyolefin layer.
However, Hiraki discloses that a thickness of the polypropylene layer is 15 to 120 μm [0052], while a thickness of the acid-modified polypropylene layer is 10 to 50 μm [0064]. Moreover, if the thickness of the acid-modified polypropylene layer is too large, cohesive failure of the acid-modified polypropylene layer is more likely to occur, which tends to reduce the adhesion of the adhesive film for metal terminals [0052].
Takada is directed towards a terminal film for an energy storage device interposed between a packaging material that packages the body of the energy storage device and a metal terminal that is electrically connected to the body of the energy storage device [0001, 0009], comprising an adhesive layer [0049, 0056, 0098]. Takada teaches an intermediate layer [element 33. 0070, FIGs. 1 and 3] containing a polyolefin block copolymer and is located between a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer [0070, 0077]. The polyolefin block copolymer includes homopolypropylene [0071, 0077]. The intermediate layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 μm [0079], and if a thickness of a first outermost layer or the metal terminal is thick, the thickness of the intermediate layer may be increased accordingly [0079].
Hiraki and Takada each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – an ------adhesive film. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive film of Hiraki so that there is an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polypropylene layer and the polypropylene layer, in order to improve adhesion, achieve heat resistance and low-temperature fusion properties, and to prevent leakage when energy storage devices are kept in high-temperature environments for extended periods [Takada, 0074-0075, 0077].
As to the specific thickness relationships of the layers as claimed, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the layer thickness, as each layer may have a thickness within a specified range, as set forth above in ¶51-52, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to pursue the claimed thickness relationships with a reasonable expectation of success, through routine experimentation, due to a finite number of thickness relationship combinations, with there only being three types of layers, an intermediate layer, an acid-modified polyolefin layer, and a polyolefin layer, as claimed (see MPEP2144.05(II) and MPEP 2143(I)(E)). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the thickness relationships, in order to account for the thickness of the other layers [Takada, 0079], and to mitigate cohesive failure of the acid-modified polypropylene layer and promote adhesion of the adhesive film [Hiraki, 0052].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the adhesive film of Hiraki as modified by Takada (hereinafter “modified Hiraki”) would have an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polypropylene layer and the polypropylene layer (an intermediate layer between the acid-modified polyolefin layer and the polyolefin layer), and the aforesaid experimentation would have resulted in all of the thickness relationship combinations of the three layers tested, of which would have encompassed, and thereby renders prima facie obvious, the claimed relationship of the thickness of the intermediate layer > the thickness of the acid-modified polyolefin layer > the thickness of the polyolefin layer, see MPEP2144.05(II) and MPEP 2143(I)(E).
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.
Furukawa et al., US 2020/0001546 A1; is directed towards a resin composition that contains (A) a polypropylene-based resin and (B) a modified polyolefin-based resin that has sufficient mechanical strength and is sufficiently strongly joined to a metal member [0027-0030, 0047-0051].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights