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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 04/30/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7–9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, and 18 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claims 6 and 15 are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/04/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as established below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 14, “a tab of the electrode assembly extend” should read “a tab of the electrode assembly extends” for proper grammar.
In claim 2, lines 1 and 2, “the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface or the second cambered surface” should be deleted because claim 1 already recites this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–5 and 7–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 105449255 A, from 11/30/22 IDS; citations to English equivalent US 20160043361 A1) (Bao) in view of Kim (US 20100291432 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bao discloses a battery cell (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising (via annot. fig. 1 below) an electrode assembly (cell 1 with pos. electrode, separator, and neg. electrode, ¶ 0006) and a packaging bag for accommodating the electrode assembly (package 2; see also ¶ 0006); wherein the battery cell further comprises: a first adhesive layer adhered to a side of the electrode assembly (adhesive paper 4 (1AL in annot. fig. 7)); and a second adhesive layer disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly to bond the packaging bag and the electrode assembly (binding material 3 (2AL in annotated figs. 1 and 7) indirectly disposed; see also, e.g., ¶ 0028, 0034, and 0238), wherein,
the outermost surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first cambered surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a second cambered surface opposite the first cambered surface, where the first surface, first cambered surface, second surface, and second cambered surface are joined sequentially (annot. figs. 1 and 7); the second adhesive layer is disposed on the first surface (Id.) wherein, along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, the first adhesive layer is disposed between the electrode assembly and the second adhesive layer (Id.).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
180
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per the above figures, Bao appears to further disclose equal lengths of the “first” and “second” adhesive layers in the electrode assembly’s length direction yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to equal lengths to achieve the desired adherence, fails to explicitly disclose that along a length direction of the electrode assembly, a length of the first adhesive layer is longer than a length of the second adhesive layer.
Kim, in teaching an analogous sealing tape for a battery electrode assembly (Abstract), teaches that the tape includes base material 51 over adhesive layer 52 (e.g., Abstract, fig. 4), respectively corresponding to Bao’s second and first adhesive layers. Kim further teaches slightly shrinking the base material (51c) so that the adhesive layer is longer in the electrode assembly’s length direction and includes exposed portions (521c, fig. 4B). Kim teaches that the exposed portions prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the can (¶ 0044), which otherwise increases the battery’s internal resistance and breaks the electrode tabs (¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make Bao’s second adhesive layer slightly shorter than the first layer in the electrode assembly’s length direction to form exposed portions of the first layer, as taught by Kim, with the reasonable expectation of further preventing the electrode assembly from moving inside the packaging/container and increasing internal resistance and breaking the electrode tabs, as taught by Kim. Moreover, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in changing such dimension because Bao discloses a first adhesive layer wider than second adhesive layer (annot. fig. 7) and, thus, the ability to alter each adhesive layer’s dimensions.
Further, per MPEP 2144.04(IV.)(A.), changing size/proportion is generally prima facie obvious, absent secondary considerations or modification to the device’s operation. Here, there appear to be no unexpected results from the instant disclosure’s making the first layer longer, and making Bao’s second layer slightly shorter would not seem to affect the battery’s operation but would predictably maintain or improve the electrode assembly’s adherence to the container.
Bao further discloses that a tab of the electrode assembly extends out of the packaging bag along the length direction of the electrode assembly (tabs extending out of upper end of packaging bag in Bao’s annot. fig. 1); the first adhesive layer is a single-side adhesive (per Bao’s ¶ 0034, adhesive paper 4 may have one adhesive surface) and the second adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive (in adhering to both the adhesive paper and the package (as in Bao’s figs. 1/7 and, e.g., ¶ 0238, binding material 3 is reasonably double-sided, as is conventional (per Bao’s ¶ 0004)).
Bao further discloses that the binding material—which, per annot. fig. 7 above, would be accompanied by adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer—may be provided at any position of the cell’s outer surface facing the package, including being positioned across and surrounding the top and bottom of the cell (¶ 0032; note also positioning perpendicular to electrode assembly’s width direction in annotated fig. 1), but appears to fail to explicitly embody wrapping along the assembly’s width direction and, thus, that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface or the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely wrap Bao’s adhesive paper plus binding material along the electrode assembly’s width direction with a reasonable expectation of forming a successfully adhered electrode assembly and cell.
Thus, modified Bao would disclose that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface, as in claim 2 (i.e., in wrapping both “adhesive layers” along the cell’s width direction, both layers would be independently adhered to each of the four recited surfaces; compare this modification to substantially similar instant fig. 3).
Further, regarding claim 1’s requirement that the first and second adhesive layers have an overlapping section and a non-overlapping section, such merely stems from the recited length difference (see instant fig. 1 ref. 30 vs. 40). As modified Bao, via Kim, discloses a longer first adhesive layer than second, there would necessarily be an overlapping section where the second layer is atop the first layer, as well as a non-overlapping section where the first layer is longer (compare Kim’s fig. 4B to instant fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 2, wherein (per Bao’s annot. fig. 1) the electrode assembly further comprises an end surface opposite to the tab of the electrode assembly (end surface), and the battery cell further comprises a third adhesive layer (e.g., adhesive layer 31, as part of binding material 3, in being on the end of the electrode assembly (as denoted by 3AL), could be the third adhesive layer), wherein one end of the third adhesive layer is adhered to the first surface (per figure), an opposite end of the third adhesive layer in the length direction of the electrode assembly is adhered to the second surface (per Bao’s figure and, e.g., ¶ 0032 and 0238) after bypassing the end surface (as adhesive layer 31 (3AL) is part of binding material 3—which, as noted in annot. fig. 7, may be coupled to the intervening adhesive paper 4—the separate adhesive layer 31 could be considered a third layer that would reasonably not directly contact and, thus, bypass the end surface by being separated by the adhesive paper).
Bao fails to explicitly address the number of adhesive sides of adhesive layer 31 and, thus, that such is a single-sided adhesive. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that some number of adhesive surfaces must necessarily be chosen when installing adhesive layer 31 for the layer to bond properly to the neighboring components. The skilled artisan would further recognize, then, that only two solutions exist for the number of adhesive surfaces bonding Bao’s neighboring components: the adhesive may be single-sided or double-sided (as in ability for similar, intervening adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer, to be single- or double-sided in Bao’s ¶ 0034). In investigating the suitable degree of adhesion in adhesive layer 31, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely investigate employing the “third adhesive layer” as a single-sided adhesive with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful adhesive layer and adhered electrode assembly (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 2, wherein the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface are both provided with the first adhesive layer (by wrapping around, as in claim 2).
Bao further discloses an exemplary 8 mm width of adhesive paper 4 (e.g., ¶ 0236), i.e., first adhesive layer, and, thus, in wrapping fully around the electrode assembly, the total width would necessarily be > 16 mm (i.e., 8 mm on both of the cell’s flat surfaces plus additional width in wrapping the cambered surfaces), which would seemingly approach the recited total width of 20–40 mm (claim 4) and, by extension, the individual width of 10–20 mm (claim 5).
As such, though modified Bao fails to explicitly disclose widths falling within the recited ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, neither Bao nor the instant specification appears to ascribe any criticality or technical significance to the total or individual widths, so the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected Bao’s > 16 mm total, with 8 mm individually, to achieve substantially similar results as the instant 20–40 mm total width and 10–20 individual widths such that, absent demonstrated criticality, the recited widths appear obvious over Bao.
Additionally, one skilled in the art would recognize that each first adhesive layer's dimensions must be large enough to achieve the desired indirect adhesion between binding material 3, i.e., second adhesive layer, and the electrode assembly (note purpose of adhesive paper 4, ¶ 0034) while adequately covering the assembly, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery’s active-material content relative to the cell's total volume and, thus, the energy density. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing each first adhesive layer’s width (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a length of the electrode assembly and the length of the first adhesive layer is 5 mm (see Bao’s Ex. 18, ¶ 0225–0238, where electrode assembly (as prepared in Exs. 1/4) is 80 mm long, and adhesive paper is 75 mm long), which falls within 4–10 mm.
Regarding claim 8, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
As established in claim 1, modified Bao further discloses that the second adhesive layer is slightly shorter than the first adhesive layer (per Kim’s exposed portions) but fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference of 4–10 mm.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that a minimum length difference must necessarily exist to form the exposed portions, whereas making Bao’s first layer too short would necessarily compromise the indirect attachment of the second layer to the electrode assembly, and making the second layer too short would necessarily compromise the attachment to the packaging. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the length difference between the first and second adhesive layers (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
Bao further discloses exemplary lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (binding material 3) of 80 mm and 75 mm, respectively (¶ 0061 and 0236, respectively) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to these lengths to achieve the desired adhered electrode assembly, fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that the second adhesive layer's dimensions must necessarily be large enough to achieve the desired adhesion between the first adhesive layer and packaging, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. Likewise, lengthening the electrode assembly would necessarily impart higher capacity by including more active material, whereas shortening the electrode assembly would necessarily enable the assembly to be applied in smaller devices. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 10–14 and 16–18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 105449255 A; citations to English equivalent US 20160043361 A1) (Bao) in view of Kim (US 20100291432 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hur et al. (WO 2018088773 A1, with mach. translation) (Hur).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
Bao further discloses that the cell is applicable to electrical appliances and power devices (¶ 0003) but fails to explicitly articulate housing the battery in such.
Hur, in teaching an analogous electronic device including a battery encased in a housing with multiple adhesive layers (Abstract), teaches wrapping cell 150 with packaging material 153 (fig. 4A) and then accommodating the battery in phone case 110/120 (fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Bao's cell, when powering a device such as a phone, must necessarily be housed in some manner, and, as demonstrated by Hur, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the packaged cell into, e.g., a phone case as an appropriate housing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 10, wherein the outermost surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first cambered surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a second cambered surface opposite the first cambered surface that are joined sequentially (Bao’s annot. fig. 1 and per claim 1).
Bao further discloses that the binding material—which, per annotated fig. 7 above, would be accompanied by adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer—may be provided at any position of the cell’s outer surface facing the package, including being positioned across and surrounding the top and bottom of the cell (¶ 0032; note also positioning perpendicular to electrode assembly’s width direction in annotated fig .1), but appears to fail to explicitly disclose an embodiment of wrapping along the assembly’s width direction and, thus, that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface or the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely wrap Bao’s adhesive paper plus binding material along the electrode assembly’s width direction with a reasonable expectation of forming a successfully adhered electrode assembly and cell.
Thus, modified Bao would disclose that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface (i.e., in wrapping both “adhesive layers” along the cell’s width direction, both layers would be independently adhered to each of the four recited surfaces; compare this modification to substantially similar instant fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 11, wherein (per Bao’s annot. fig. 1) the electrode assembly further comprises an end surface opposite to the tab of the electrode assembly (end surface), and the battery cell further comprises a third adhesive layer (e.g., adhesive layer 31, as part of binding material 3, in being on the end of the electrode assembly (as denoted by 3AL), could be the third adhesive layer), wherein one end of the third adhesive layer is adhered to the first surface (per figure), an opposite end of the third adhesive layer in the length direction of the electrode assembly is adhered to the second surface (per Bao’s figure and, e.g., ¶ 0032 and 0238) after bypassing the end surface (as adhesive layer 31 (3AL) is part of binding material 3—which, as noted in annot. fig. 7, may be coupled to the intervening adhesive paper 4—the separate adhesive layer 31 could be considered a third layer that would reasonably not directly contact and, thus, bypass the end surface by being separated by the adhesive paper).
Bao is silent to whether adhesive layer 31 is a single-sided adhesive. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that some number of adhesive surfaces must necessarily be chosen when installing adhesive layer 31 for the layer to bond properly to the neighboring components. The skilled artisan would further recognize, then, that only two solutions exist for the number of adhesive surfaces bonding Bao’s neighboring components: the adhesive may be single-sided or double-sided (as in ability for similar, intervening adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer, to be single- or double-sided in Bao’s ¶ 0034). In investigating the suitable degree of adhesion in adhesive layer 31, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely investigate employing the “third adhesive layer” as a single-sided adhesive with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful adhesive layer and adhered electrode assembly (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 12, wherein the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface are both provided with the first adhesive layer (by wrapping around, as in claim 2).
Bao further discloses an exemplary 8 mm width of adhesive paper 4 (e.g., ¶ 0236), i.e., first adhesive layer, and, thus, in wrapping fully around the electrode assembly, the total width would necessarily be > 16 mm (i.e., 8 mm on both of the cell’s flat surfaces plus additional width in wrapping the cambered surfaces), which would seemingly approach the recited total width of 20–40 mm (claim 13) and, by extension, the individual width of 10–20 mm (claim 14).
As such, though modified Bao fails to explicitly disclose widths falling within the recited ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, neither Bao nor the instant specification appears to ascribe any criticality or technical significance to the total or individual widths, so the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected Bao’s > 16 mm total, with 8 mm individually, to achieve substantially similar results as the instant 20–40 mm total width and 10–20 individual widths such that, absent demonstrated criticality, the recited widths appear obvious over Bao.
Additionally, one skilled in the art would recognize that each first adhesive layer's dimensions must be large enough to achieve the desired indirect adhesion between binding material 3, i.e., second adhesive layer, and the electrode assembly (note purpose of adhesive paper 4, ¶ 0034) while adequately covering the assembly, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing each first adhesive layer’s width (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 15, wherein a difference between a length of the electrode assembly and the length of the first adhesive layer is 5 mm (see Bao’s Ex. 18, ¶ 0225–0238, where electrode assembly (as prepared in Exs. 1/4) is 80 mm long, and adhesive paper is 75 mm long), which falls within 4–10 mm.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 16.
As established in claim 1, modified Bao further discloses that the second adhesive layer is slightly shorter than the first adhesive layer (per Kim’s exposed portions) but fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference of 4–10 mm.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that a minimum length difference must necessarily exist to form the exposed portions, whereas making Bao’s first layer too short would necessarily compromise the indirect attachment of the second layer to the electrode assembly, and making the second layer too short would necessarily compromise the attachment to the packaging. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the length difference between the first and second adhesive layers (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 17.
Bao further discloses exemplary lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (binding material 3) of 80 mm and 75 mm, respectively (¶ 0061 and 0236, respectively) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to these lengths to achieve the desired adhered electrode assembly, fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that the second adhesive layer's dimensions must necessarily be large enough to achieve the desired adhesion between the first adhesive layer and packaging, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. Likewise, lengthening the electrode assembly would necessarily impart higher capacity by including more active material, whereas shortening the electrode assembly would necessarily enable the assembly to be applied in smaller devices. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Bao’s first adhesive layer (adhesive 4) is only adhered to the first (flat) surface versus the first or second cambered surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the proposed modification to wrap the first and second adhesive layers around the cambered surfaces given Bao discloses that binding material 3/2nd adhesive—embodied in fig. 7 as including adhesive paper 4/1st adhesive—may be disposed anywhere on the cell’s outer surface, including across and surrounding the top and bottom of the cell. Examiner observes no unexpected effect from wrapping in this manner compared to similar arrangements Bao already embodies, and, thus, this case of obviousness appears proper.
Applicant further argues that neither Bao nor Kim recognizes the significant advantage of preventing battery droppage based on including first and second adhesive layers. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Bao, in being the primary reference and already disclosing two adhesive layers, appears invulnerable to unexpected results based on dual adhesive layers; in other words, it appears that secondary considerations would need to be shown specifically over 1) Kim’s length difference or 2) adhering the first adhesive layer to the first or second cambered surface because such were the only proposed modifications and, thus, the bases for the case of obviousness (see MPEP 716.02(e), where unexpected results must compare to closest prior art).
Further, in response to Applicant’s argument that Bao’s first adhesive layer and second functional layer necessitate a double-sided adhesive and, thus, would be subject to “stress exerted on the packaging bag during its fall directly affecting the battery,” 1) Bao discloses that adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer, may be single-sided (¶ 0034), and 2) Bao recognizes the same issue of mitigating damage from battery droppage (¶ 0004, 0005), meaning the above effect appears expected. Regarding Applicant’s auxiliary argument that Kim only includes one adhesive layer and, thus, would also experience droppage stress, Examiner respectfully submits that Kim was only used to render obvious the length difference (see MPEP 2145 (IV), where obviousness is based on the combined suggestions from the prior art versus individual teachings), making this argument unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights