throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/886,417
`
`02/01/2018
`
`Tomoki Shiozaki
`
`P180076US00
`
`4110
`
`WES TERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`S UITE 7500
`
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`V0~ JIMMY
`
`1723
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/3 0/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentmai1@ whda.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/886,417
`Examiner
`JIMMY K vo
`
`Applicant(s)
`Shiozaki et al.
`Art Unit
`1723
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/14/2020.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`8)
`Claim(s 120 Is/are rejected
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[] accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)l:I None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200622
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 5/18/2020 has been entered.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`In the amendment dated 4/14/2020, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 20 have been
`
`amended; and Claim 21 has been cancelled.
`
`The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in response to the claim amendment.
`
`Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the
`
`"Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 4/14/2020.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
`
`prior Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 1, 3-9, 12-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Xing
`
`et al., US 20040081890 (hereinafter, Xing), in view of Maeda et al., US 20120196172 (hereinafter,
`
`Maeda).
`
`As to Claim 1:
`
`Xing discloses a secondary battery (see "Cell 12... a secondary (rechargeable) cell...", [0026],
`
`Fig. 1) comprising:
`
`a positive electrode having a positive-electrode current collector and a positive-electrode active-
`
`material layer disposed on the positive-electrode current collector (see "... cathode... active material...
`
`current collector... cathode layer 24...", [0027, 0034], Fig. 1, 8-10);
`
`a negative electrode having a negative-electrode current collector and a negative-electrode
`
`active-material layer disposed on the negative-electrode current collector (see "... anode... active
`
`material... current collector...", [0027-0028, 0034], Fig. 1, 8-10);
`
`an electrolyte (see "... Separator film layer 42 is... ionically conductive electrolyte...", [0029]);
`
`and
`
`an insulating tape covering a portion of the positive electrode (see "a protective sleeve 50...
`
`around... cathode current collector 26..." [0031], Fig. 1),
`
`wherein the positive-electrode current collector has an exposed section that the positive-
`
`electrode active-material layer is not disposed (see Fig. 1-4 — the protective sleeve 50 cover a part the
`
`current collector where the active material is not disposed),
`
`at least a portion of the exposed section is covered with the insulating tape (see Fig. 1-4 — the
`
`protective sleeve 50 cover a part the current collector where the active material is not disposed),
`
`the insulating tape has a substrate material layer and an adhesive layer (see "protective sleeve
`
`50 is comprised of an outer polymer layer 52 and an inner adhesive layer 54...", [0031], Figs. 1-4),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 4
`
`the adhesive layer includes an adhesive agent (see "... Adhesive 54 is... electrically non-
`
`conductive, thermosetting polymer, sealing material... rubber or resin... A silicone material...", [0032,
`
`0035]), and
`
`wherein the substrate material layer is has at least one of the group consisting of a polyimide, a
`
`polyamide and a poly(amide imide) (see "... Various plastic tapes... forming outer layer 52...
`
`polyimide...", [0031, 0035]).
`
`Xing does not disclose the adhesive layer has an insulating inorganic material.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Maeda also discloses a secondary battery with a protective layer
`
`13 disposed on the current collector (Abstract, [0004, 0006, 0008]) similar to that of Xing. Maeda
`
`further discloses that the protective layer contains the powder of inorganic material such as a
`
`conductive oxide [0068, 0074, 0075], which facilitates the production of the protective layer that is
`
`insulated [0068].
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate an inorganic material such as a conductive oxide into the protective layer of Xing as taught
`
`by Maeda as to facilitate the production of the protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`As to Claim 3:
`
`Xing does not disclose the insulating inorganic material has a particular shape.
`
`Maeda further discloses that the protective layer contains the powder/particles of inorganic
`
`material such as a conductive oxide [0068, 0074, 0075], which facilitates the production of the
`
`protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate an inorganic material such as a powder metal compound into the protective layer of Xing as
`
`taught by Maeda as to facilitate the production of the protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`As to Claim 4:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 5
`
`Xing disclose that the substrate material layer contains a thermosetting polymeric sealing
`
`material such as polyimide [0031, 0035].
`
`As to Claim 5:
`
`Xing discloses that the thickness of the tape is between 0.0015 to 0.0045 inches or 38 to 114
`
`micrometer ([0031-0032] — combination of the outer layer and the adhesive layer 54).
`
`Even though Xing does not disclose the same claimed range, Xing does disclose a range that
`
`overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the
`
`thickness range of Xing to achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a
`
`range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In
`
`re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the
`
`claimed ranges ”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16
`
`USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 6:
`
`Xing discloses the adhesive layer but does not disclose any electric resistance value.
`
`Maeda teaches that it is particularly desirable that the protective layer have a resistance of from
`
`5 to about 100 OMEGA as to ensure battery safety effectively by causing gentle discharge [0111].
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`modify the electrical resistance of Xing as taught by Maeda as to achieve the claimed range as to ensure
`
`battery safety effectively by causing gentle discharge [0111].
`
`As to Claim 7:
`
`Xing discloses that the thickness of the adhesive layer is between 0.001 to 0.002 inches or 25 to
`
`50 micrometer [0032].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 6
`
`Even though Xing does not disclose the same claimed range, Xing does disclose a range that
`
`overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the
`
`thickness range of Xing to achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a
`
`range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In
`
`re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the
`
`claimed ranges ”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16
`
`USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 8:
`
`Xing discloses that the thickness of the substrate material layer is 12 to 38 micrometer [0031].
`
`Even though Xing does not disclose the same claimed range, Xing does disclose a range that
`
`overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the
`
`thickness range of Xing to achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a
`
`range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In
`
`re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the
`
`claimed ranges ”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16
`
`USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 9:
`
`Xing discloses a ratio of Tad/st is (25-50 micrometer)/(12-38 micrometer) or 0.7 to 4.1 [0031,
`
`0032i
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 7
`
`Even though Xing does not disclose the same claimed range, Xing does disclose a range that
`
`overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the
`
`thickness range of Xing to achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a
`
`range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In
`
`re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the
`
`claimed ranges ”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16
`
`USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 12:
`
`Xing discloses the insulating inorganic material but does not disclose the metal compound.
`
`Maeda discloses that the protective layer contains the powder/particles of inorganic material
`
`such as a conductive oxide [0068, 0074, 0075], which facilitates the production of the protective layer
`
`that is insulated [0068]. Even though Maeda does not disclose a range of 90 or more than one material,
`
`it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to used solely a
`
`single type of metal compound (100 percent by mass of one metal compound) or used several of
`
`different metal compound to make a mixture as to form the insulating material having the desired
`
`insulation property.
`
`Additionally, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the mixture/composition
`
`of Maeda to achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a range
`
`encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In
`
`re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the
`
`claimed ranges ”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 8
`
`exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16
`
`USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 13:
`
`Xing discloses an insulating layer but does not disclose the insulating material contains a metal
`
`oxide.
`
`Maeda further discloses that the protective layer contains the powder/particles of inorganic
`
`material such as a metal oxide [0068, 0074, 0075], which facilitates the production of the protective
`
`layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate an inorganic material such as a metal oxide compound into the protective layer of Xing as
`
`taught by Maeda as to facilitate the production of the protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`As to Claim 15:
`
`Xing discloses the insulting layer can be formed of polyimide but does not disclose it forms of
`
`polyimide and another resin.
`
`Maeda further discloses that the protective layer can comprises an insulative polymer that can
`
`be a combination of at least one polymer including polyimide, polyamideimide, and polyvinylidene
`
`fluoride [0069], which facilitates the production of the protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate a combination of polymer including polyimide of Xing and another polymer as taught by
`
`Maeda as to facilitate the production of the protective layer that is insulated [0068].
`
`As to Claim 18:
`
`Xing discloses the adhesive layer includes rubber or silicone [0032].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims 2, 11, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing
`
`in view of Maeda, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohura et al., US 6123799
`
`(hereinafter, Ohura).
`
`As to Claim 2:
`
`Xing in view of Maeda discloses the insulating inorganic material but does not disclose the
`
`specific amount of the inorganic material in the adhesive layer.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Ohura also discloses a multilayer adhesive for adhering and
`
`insulating electronics part with each other (Abstract, Col. 1, lines 8-16, lines 19-27, Col. 6, lines 53-67)
`
`similar to the adhesive layer of Maeda and Xing. Ohura also discloses the layer comprises inorganic
`
`material such as metal oxide similar to that of Maeda and further teaches that inorganic material in the
`
`adhesive layer can be between 10-300 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts of weight of the
`
`copolymer as the component A (Col. 5, lines 53-63). The addition of the filler in the disclosed range can
`
`achieve better heat conductivity and adhesiveness (Col. 5, lines 53-63).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate the inorganic material of modified Xing as taught in the range of Ohura as to achieve better
`
`heat conductivity and adhesiveness (Col. 5, lines 53-63).
`
`Additionally, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the range of Ohura to
`
`achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a
`
`somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
`
`Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409
`
`F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the claimed ranges
`
`”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
`
`Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16 USPQ2d 1934
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`As to Claim 11:
`
`Page 10
`
`Xing in view of Maeda discloses the metal compound is a particle but does not disclose the
`
`specific shape of the particle.
`
`Ohura further disclose that the particle can be a spherical form, a circular form, a flake form,
`
`and a star form depending on the theological property of the copolymer as the component A and the
`
`rheological property of the final pressure-sensitive adhesive (Col. 5, lines 19-34).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate the particle form of Ohura to the metal compound of modified Xing as to achieve the
`
`desired theological property of the copolymer as the component A and the rheological property of the
`
`final pressure-sensitive adhesive (Col. 5, lines 19-34).
`
`As to Claim 14:
`
`Modified Xing discloses the insulating inorganic material containing metal compound particles
`
`but does not disclose the specific particle size/diameter.
`
`Ohura further discloses that the filler mean particle diameter can be 2 to 10 pm as to achieve
`
`the desired adhesive sheet with the desired characteristics such as volume, thickness and
`
`conductivity/insulation (Col. 6, line 59 — Col. 7, line 19).
`
`It would have been obvious to a persons skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate the mean particle diameter of Ohura to the inorganic material of modified Xing as to
`
`achieve the desired adhesive sheet with the desired characteristics such as volume, thickness and
`
`conductivity/insulation (Col. 6, line 59 — Col. 7, line 19).
`
`Additionally, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the range of Ohura to
`
`achieve applicant’s claimed range as a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a
`
`somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
`
`Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 11
`
`F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951. Further, the court has held that in the case where the claimed ranges
`
`”overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
`
`Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,16 USPQ2d 1934
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`As to Claim 17:
`
`Xing discloses that the substrate material layer contains a polyimide (see "... Various plastic
`
`tapes... forming outer layer 52... polyimide...", [0031, 0035]), but does not specifically disclose that the
`
`specific range amount of polyimide being used.
`
`Ohura further discloses that the layer can be just polyimide film or 100% mass amount of
`
`polyimide (see Example 6, Col. 10, lines 25-48) as to achieve an adhesive layer with the desired
`
`characteristics better heat conductivity and adhesiveness (Col. 5, lines 53-63).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate a substrate material layer of Xing with the specific amount of polyimide as taught by Ohura
`
`as to achieve an adhesive layer with the desired characteristics better heat conductivity and
`
`adhesiveness (Col. 5, lines 53-63).
`
`As to Claim 19:
`
`Xing discloses the adhesive layer but does not disclose the specific claimed additive.
`
`Ohura further discloses that the adhesive additive can be added such as a pigment, filler,
`
`antioxidant, tackifier, and crosslinking agent as to improve the characteristic such as heat resistance and
`
`adhesiveness of the adhesive layer (Col. 5, line 64-Col. 6, line 21).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate an additive such as a pigment, filler, antioxidant, tackifier, and crosslinking agent to the
`
`adhesive layer of Xing as to improve the characteristic such as heat resistance and adhesiveness of the
`
`adhesive layer (Col. 5, line 64-Col. 6, line 21).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 12
`
`Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing in view of
`
`Maeda, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al., US 20140011060 (hereinafter,
`
`Yang).
`
`Xing discloses the substrate material layer has at least one layer made of polyimide but does not
`
`disclose a second layer or another layer between the first substrate material layer and the adhesive
`
`layer.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Yang also discloses a sealing tape 13 to protect the current
`
`collector ([0064], Fig. 2a) similar to that of Xing. Yang further discloses that the sealing tape 13 can be
`
`multiple layers comprising polyimide, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate or the
`
`like, as to prevent short circuit between the electrode and the pouch and also to improve the sealing of
`
`the case [0064].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate multiple layer of Xing as taught by Yang having polyimide and other polymer as to prevent
`
`short circuit between the electrode and the pouch and also to improve the sealing of the case [0064].
`
`Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing in view of Maeda,
`
`as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsushita et al., US 20140120417 (hereinafter,
`
`Matsushita).
`
`Xing discloses a positive-electrode lead is electrically connected to the exposed section (see "...
`
`protected leads 128... collector material 126...", [0039], Figs. 8-10),
`
`the positive-electrode lead has an extended section projected from the exposed section and an
`
`overlapping section overlapping the exposed section ([0039], Figs. 8-10),
`
`the insulating tape covers at least a portion of the overlapping section ([0039], Figs. 8-10).
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Matsushita also discloses a battery having a protective tape 27
`
`covering the current collector portion ([0052], Fig. 13) similar to that of Xing. Matsushita discloses a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 13
`
`configuration of the protective tape as shown in Figure 13 protruding over the end as to prevent
`
`thermal runaway of the battery [0052].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`incorporate a protective tape of Xing arranged as taught by Matsushita as to prevent thermal runaway
`
`of the battery [0052].
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because
`
`the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/886,417
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 14
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
`
`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,
`
`Milton Cano can be reached on 5712721398. 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 the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
`
`through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
`
`the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
`
`9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/JIMMY VO/
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 1723
`
`/JIMMY VO/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket