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 .
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.
Objections
On line 3 of claim 7, it appears that a comma should be inserted after member.
Contrary to claim 10, lines 7-8, the insulator materials are on “in the first insulating film.” It is suggested that this phrase be deleted.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tapered side(s) of the conductor, as required by claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Fig 1 should be labeled as “conventional” or “prior art” as suggested by paragraph 9 of the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo, et al (KR 1020170117674) in view of Hatta, et al (US Pat 8,263,256). Woo discloses a lead member comprising a conductor 310, a covering material comprising an inner layer 330 and an outer layer 340, and insulators 621, 622, arranged as claimed. The insulators decrease in thickness as a distance from the conductor increases. Woo fails to specify that the outer layer has a higher melting point than the inner layer. However, Hatta discloses a similar device and teaches (column 2, lines 4-21) that it is well known to use a protective nylon film (which has a known melting point of 220-265oC) or polyethylene terephthalate (as required by claim 15) for the outer layer 12 and an easily melted material such as a polyolefin resin (which has a known melting point of 120-130oC) for the inner layer 13. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to select such materials, with appropriate melting points, as the materials with which to form the device of Woo.
In regard to the particular make-up of the polyolefin in claims 2 and 3, it is noted that those of ordinary skill are well aware of the polyolefin content needed to achieve the desired melting point. It would have been obvious to select 40% or greater as needed.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, it has been held that selection of or changes in size and shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Applicant has not shown that the large range of thickness (claim 5) or the taper (claim 6) are significantly different than those in the prior art. Such selections would have been obvious in view the various teachings of Woo and Hatta.
In regard to claim 7, it is noted that the lead member of Woo is part of a battery package.
In regard to claims 8-14, the various steps of preparing and placing the components are seen to be inherent in achieving the finished product shown by Woo. Further, Woo indicates that welding is used to secure the films (page 5). In regard to claims 11 and 12, it is noted that as finally assembled, the insulator materials of Woo are on the inner layers in a predetermined position.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo and Hatta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (paragraphs 30-32). The present specification discusses the processes that result in spread when discussing the prior art. The disadvantages, advantages and methods of obtaining an inner layer that spreads from the outer layer are therefore well known. Such a result also indicates that the inner layer has sufficiently melted and it would have been obvious to have such spreading for that reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morioka, et al is a further example of covering a conductor with an inner sheath of polyolefin resin and an outer sheath of a more durable material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Renee Luebke, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2009 and who can normally be reached between 11am and 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.
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.
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833