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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (JP2015153694 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)).
Considering Claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method for manufacturing a pouch case for a secondary battery (laminate film casing for electrochemical cell [0002] such as a secondary battery [0002, 0031] and a method of making [0036, Figures 1 a-b]), the method comprising the steps of:
(S1) preparing a pouch exterior for the secondary battery (outer casing 21 houses battery in pouch shape [0026, Figure 1], overlapped and laminated [0022, 0017]) comprising a structure in which a substrate layer, a barrier layer, and a sealant layer are sequentially stacked (resin layer, metal foil, and protective layer formed in laminate [0023]);
(S2) molding the pouch exterior for the secondary battery to form a cup part (heating performed for sealing heat fusion, then folded portions formed to form cup part for accommodating battery [0036, Figures 5 and 6]); and
(S3) reducing an at least one cracks of the sealant layer of the pouch exterior for the secondary battery (second heating performed to remelt by reheat fusion at the folded portions to eliminate minute cracks [0036]).
Considering Claim 2, Tanaka discloses that in step (S3), the sealant layer is heated to reduce the at least one crack of the sealant layer (second heating performed to remelt by reheat fusion at the folded portions to eliminate minute cracks [0036]).
Considering Claim 6, Tanaka discloses that in step S3, a region to which the heating is applied is an edge of the cup part extending in a horizontal direction of the sealant layer (heating applied to whole folded portion [0036], region extends in horizontal direction [Figures 1 and 5]).
Considering Claim 9, Tanaka discloses that the sealant layer comprises at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene (resin layer formed of polyethylene or polypropylene [0023]).
Considering Claim 13, Tanaka discloses that the substrate layer comprises at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or nylon (protective layer may comprise polyethylene terephthalate, or nylon [0023]).
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 3, 10 , 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP2015153694 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)).
Considering Claim 3, Tanaka discloses that in step S3, a surface temperature of the sealant layer is in a range of 40-110 °C (second heating performed to remelt by reheat fusion at the folded portions to eliminate minute cracks [0036], resin material choice may include polyethylene as a choice [0023], so selecting polyethylene for predicted function and reading on such a temperature range in the remelting step would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 10, Tanaka discloses that the thickness of the folded portion is reduced so as to provide a thin electrochemical cell [0010]. A resin layer, a metal foil, and a protective layer are formed in laminate [0023]. Because the sheet provides a highly durable cell with reduced likelihood of short circuits [0010, 0011, 0041], and wherein the layers are kept thin to provide a thin cell [0010], routinely experimenting with and coming up with a sealant layer thickness of 60-100 µm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering Claim 12, Tanaka discloses that the thickness of the folded portion is reduced so as to provide a thin electrochemical cell [0010]. A resin layer, a metal foil, and a protective layer are formed in laminate [0023]. Because the sheet provides a highly durable cell with reduced likelihood of short circuits [0010, 0011, 0041], and the metal foil blocks moisture and oxygen [0023], routinely experimenting with and coming up with a barrier layer thickness in a range of 20-80 µm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP2015153694 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)) and further in view of Tamaru et al. (PGPub 2022/0094000).
Considering Claims 4 and 5, Tanaka is silent to infrared heating with a wavelength and emitting time.
Tamaru discloses a power storage module with sealing in a lamination direction [Abstract]. By controlling the wavelength of the infrared rays in the case of infrared fusion, it is possible to selectively heat only the resin of a sealing portion with high quality and in a short time [0066]. Therefore, routinely experimenting with and coming up with a wavelength of 1-100 µm and an emitting time of 1-60 seconds to achieve the high quality and quick sealing and reheating needed in Tanaka would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP2015153694 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)) and further in view of Yasuda et al. (JP2016-195113 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)).
Considering Claim 7, Tanaka discloses assembling a storage area for the electrode body [0008] and a housing portion with various dimensions [0012, 0013]. However, Tanaka is silent to a depth of the cup part being in a range of 4-10 mm.
Yasuda discloses a mold for suitably forming a laminated battery packaging material [0001]. The molding depth for the corresponding packaging material has a depth of 3 mm or more and 10 mm or less [0036] such as 3 mm to 5 mm for the final packaging material [0040] so as to suppress the occurrence of pinholes and other defects caused by molding [0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the housing method of Tanaka with the depth teaching of Yasuda in order to suppress the occurrence of pinholes and other defects caused by molding [0036].
Considering Claim 8, Tanaka is silent to a molding speed.
Yasuda discloses a mold for suitably forming a laminated battery packaging material [0001]. It is preferably to mold the battery packaging material under conditions where the molding speed may include 1.0 mm/second in order to more effectively suppress the occurrence of pinholes and the like even more effectively [0034].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the housing method of Tanaka with the molding speed of Yasuda in order to more effectively suppress the occurrence of pinholes and the like even more effectively [0034].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP2015153694 as cited in 6/17/24 IDS (see attached Machine Translation)) and further in view of Ise et al. (PGPub 2019/0296327).
Considering Claim 11, Tanaka discloses that the metal foil is formed using aluminum [0023]. However, Tanaka does not specifically disclose an aluminum alloy foil.
Ise discloses a secondary battery and battery pack [0002]. A laminate film is used for the container [0201], and a metal film is sandwiched between resin layers [0203]. The metal layer is preferably made of aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil so as to reduce weight [0203]. Because both aluminum and aluminum alloy foil are light-weight and can be used to form the container member by heat-sealing [0203], substituting aluminum alloy foil for aluminum foil to achieve such predicted results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
