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
`
`