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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recites “a third surface...” in line 16. Claims 5-6 and 14-15, which depends upon claims 1 and 10, respectively, also recites “a third surface...”. It is unclear to the examiner whether “a third surface” recited in claims 5-6 and 14-15, refers to the third surface recited in claims 1 and 10 or a completely different third surface. Clarification is needed.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 2017/0263983).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 12, and 14-16, Bao discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising a housing (2), an electrode assembly, wherein at least a part of the electrode assembly is located inside the housing [0024], an insulation tape, wherein the insulation tape is located between the housing and the electrode assembly (Fig. 1-2), the insulation tape comprises a first surface (4) bonded to the electrode assembly and a second surface (3) bonded to the housing, the first surface (4) comprises a first bonding zone and the second surface (3) comprises a second bonding zone, and a first adhesive (4), a substrate (31), and a second adhesive (32) as claimed (all Figs). Bao discloses that the bonding area (3) is also based upon the degree of covering layer that is dissolved or swollen into the electrolyte in whole or in part so as to expose the second surface (Abstract). The degree of exposure of the second surface contributes to the area of the second bonding zone. Additionally, Bao discloses that the electrode assembly has a thickness of 3.5 mm, a width of 48 mm, and a length of 80 mm, the first surface has length of 75 mm and width of 8-11 mm, the second surface has a length of 75 mm, a width of 8 mm (all Examples), wherein the first bonding zone is greater than an area of the second bonding zone (all Figs), however fails to explicitly disclose the dimension and placement as claimed and also in relations to a third surface (0.08≤ B/A≤0.965, or 0.15≤B/A≤0.85 per claims 3 and 12, 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, and D≤0.1xL1, E≤0.1xW1).
However, Bao discloses that the insulation tape, having a specified size, is important for ensuring the safety of the electrode assembly, as it adhered at a predetermined position within the package. Therefore, the positioning and size or bonding zones are a result effective variable to contribute the safety of the electrode assembly and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. erefore, the etheThere
It
Itwould have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimension and placement as claimed. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the size and positioning of the bonding zones in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully bond the housing and electrode assembly together for safety purposes (passing drop test). Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in claims 1-6 and 10-15 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Bao discloses the shapes as claimed [0035].
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN (210156440U).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7 10, 12, and 14-16, CN ‘440 discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising a housing (20), an electrode assembly (12), wherein at least a part of the electrode assembly is located inside the housing (All Figs), an insulation tape (14, 16), wherein the insulation tape is located between the housing and the electrode assembly (all Figs), the insulation tape comprises a first surface (14) bonded to the electrode assembly and a second surface (16) bonded to the housing, the first surface (14) comprises a first bonding zone and the second surface (3) comprises a second bonding zone (All Figs). Furthermore, CN ‘440 discloses a first adhesive (14) and a second adhesive (16). Given that there is no material distinction between (first adhesive and substrate) or (substrate and second adhesive), the examiner is taking the position that upper stratum of first adhesive or lower stratum of second adhesive corresponds to the claimed substrate, thereby would read upon the claimed structure. CN ‘440 discloses the area of the first bonding zone is greater than an area of the second bonding zone (all Figs), however fails to explicitly disclose the dimension and placement as claimed and also in relations to a third surface (0.08≤ B/A≤0.965, or 0.15≤B/A≤0.85 per claims 3 and 12, 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, and D≤0.1xL1, E≤0.1xW1).
However, CN ‘440 discloses that the arrangement of the insulation tape would withstand the impact force when the batty core is dropped or vibrated and other mechanical abuse. Therefore, the positioning and size or bonding zones are a result effective variable to contribute the safety of the electrode assembly and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. erefore, the etheThere
It
Itwould have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimension and placement as claimed. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the size and positioning of the bonding zones in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully bond the housing and electrode assembly together to withstand impact forces. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in claims 1-6 and 10-15 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, CN ‘440 discloses the shapes as claimed.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 10,833,297).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7 10, 12, and 14-16, Ahn discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising a housing (20), an electrode assembly (10), wherein at least a part of the electrode assembly is located inside the housing (All Figs), an insulation tape (seal tape + 100), wherein the insulation tape is located between the housing and the electrode assembly (all Figs), the insulation tape comprises a first surface (seal tape) bonded to the electrode assembly and a second surface (100) bonded to the housing, the first surface (seal tape) comprises a first bonding zone and the second surface (100) comprises a second bonding zone (All Figs). Ahn further discloses a first adhesive (seal tape), substrate (120), and a second adhesive (110), which therefore reads upon the claimed structure. Alternatively, given that there is no material distinction between (first adhesive and substrate) or (substrate and second adhesive), the examiner is taking the position that upper stratum of first adhesive or lower stratum of second adhesive corresponds to the claimed substrate, thereby would read upon the claimed insulation tape structure. Ahn discloses the area of the first bonding zone is greater than an area of the second bonding zone (claim 1), however fails to explicitly disclose the dimension and placement as claimed and also in relations to a third surface (0.08≤ B/A≤0.965, or 0.15≤B/A≤0.85 per claims 3 and 12, 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, and D≤0.1xL1, E≤0.1xW1).
However, Ahn discloses that the arrangement of the insulation tape can withstand shocks applied to the battery. Therefore, the positioning and size or bonding zones are a result effective variable to contribute the safety of the electrode assembly and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. erefore, the etheThere
It
Itwould have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimension and placement as claimed. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the size and positioning of the bonding zones in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully bond the housing and electrode assembly together to withstand impact forces. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in claims 1-6 and 10-15 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ahn discloses the shapes as claimed (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to recited a narrowed range of 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, wherein a distance between an orthographic projection of the outer edge onto the first surface and the first outer edge is h, and a width of the first bonding zone is W2.
Applicant argues the criticality of 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, wherein “the quantity of failed electrochemical apparatuses is at most one and the pass rate is higher than or equal to 95 percent… data further shows that narrower sub-ranges yield even more pronounced results”.
However, applicant(s) are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D'Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, it is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner's position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001".
Nevertheless, the examiner has evaluated the evidence disclosed in the instant specification, however, it appears that 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2 does not provide unexpected results. Groups 2 and 3 discloses h (mm) = 0.05X42, which is outside the claimed range, provides a quantity of failed electrochemical apparatuses of 1 and a pass rate of 95%, which provides the same result that is within the claimed range (emphasis added). Given that it provides the same results, the examiner contends that 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2 does not provide any unexpected results or criticality. Additionally, the instant specification discloses “it is considered as qualified if the pass rate is not less than 80%” [0040]. In light that the examples disclose h range that are outside the claimed range yields at least 80% pass rate, this further support that there is no criticality associated with the claimed h range.
Additionally, the evidence pointed to in the specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The evidence does not support that 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2 provide unexpected results for the broad claimed range of B/A and any W2 size that includes any units (emphasis added). The data only uses specific B/A ranges and a specific W2 range (42 mm). It is not clear that every B/A range as claimed (0.08-0.965) and unlimited width size in any units would behave the same as the ones employed by Applicant in the instant Examples.
Although Applicant appears to argue an unexpected result of improved number of quantity of failed electrochemical apparatuses and excellent pass rate, the issues with the data as highlighted above illustrate that such unexpected results have not been persuasively demonstrated.
Applicant argues that Bao does not disclose the amended h limitation because Bao’s Example 15 discloses same length and width. However, it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). While the examiner agrees that Bao fails to explicitly disclose the h range, Bao discloses that the insulation tape, having a specified size, is important for ensuring the safety of the electrode assembly, as it adhered at a predetermined position within the package. Therefore, the positioning and size or bonding zones are a result effective variable to contribute the safety of the electrode assembly and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. Applicant has not persuasively established the criticality of 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2 as set forth above.erefore, the etheThere
With regards that Bao fails to disclose the claimed laminated structure because Bao’s binding materials is dissolved or swollen into the electrolyte, while Bao may serve different purpose from that disclosed by Applicant, the claims do not structurally or compositionally distinguish over the structure that by Bao. All figures of Bao disclose a laminated insulation tape, specifically Fig. 4 as it clearly shows distinct layers. Thus, arguments regarding that the structure is materially different from the claimed first adhesive, substrate, and second adhesive of Bao is not persuasive.
Further, the examiner contends that the components of the insulation tape is not materially different (holding that, “[r]egardless of the terminology used by the reference, claims are obvious where the prior art discloses or suggests the claimed structure”). As the Examiner finds, any portion of the insulation tape that is bonded to the electrode assembly would corresponds to the claimed first adhesive, any portion of the insulation tape that is bonded to the housing would correspond to the claimed second adhesive, and any portion thereof would correspond to substrate. Given that Bao discloses that the insulation tape would have a degree of adhesiveness and the claim are open to any materials, any portion of the insulation tape would read disclose or suggest “first adhesive”, “substrate”, and “second adhesive” absence of evidence of materially different insulation tape.
Applicant argues that CN ‘440 fails to disclose the claimed insulation tape. This is because the protective layer is not disclosed as a first adhesive layer bonded to the electrode assembly and it is independent from the glue layer that bonds the battery core to the packaging. This has been found unpersuasive. As set forth, the nomenclature of the layer does not give patentable weight. The examiner is taking the position that CN’s “protective layer” would corresponds to the claimed first adhesive. All figures of CN ‘440 depicts that the protective layer or “first adhesive” (14) is bonded to the electrode assembly (12) and glue or adhesive layer (16), which corresponds to the claimed “second adhesive” is bonded to the housing (20). Furthermore, given that there is no material distinction between (first adhesive and substrate) or (substrate and second adhesive), the examiner is taking the position that upper stratum of first adhesive or lower stratum of second adhesive corresponds to the claimed substrate, thereby would read upon the claimed structure. The instant claims are open to any material for the components of insulation tape, thereby, the examiner is taking the position that reference 14 and 16 collectively would read upon the claimed insulation tape.
Applicant argues that Ahn discloses a two-layer adhesive tape structure, therefore fails to disclose a laminate structure as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ahn discloses a first adhesive (seal tape), substrate (120), and a second adhesive (110), which therefore reads upon the claimed structure. Nevertheless, similarly to the reasoning set forth above previously, there is no material distinction between (first adhesive and substrate) or (substrate and second adhesive), the examiner is taking the position that upper stratum of first adhesive or lower stratum of second adhesive corresponds to the claimed substrate, thereby would read upon the claimed structure. The instant claims are open to any material for the components of insulation tape, thereby, the examiner is taking the position that references (110, 120) or (Seal Tape, 110, 120) collectively would read upon the claimed insulation tape.
With regards to applicant’s argument that Ahn fails to disclose 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, applicant’s arguments have been found unpersuasive. Indeed, Ahn fails to explicitly disclose 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2, however, Ahn discloses the area of the first bonding zone is greater than an area of the second bonding zone (claim 1) and Ahn discloses that the arrangement of the insulation tape can withstand shocks applied to the battery. Therefore, the positioning and size or bonding zones are a result effective variable to contribute the safety of the electrode assembly and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. As set forth above, applicant has not persuasively established criticality associated with 0.1xW2≤h≤0.3xW2.erefore, the etheThere
For the reasons set forth above, the rejections have been maintained.
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights