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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “ 15 ”, “ 610 ”, “ S620 ”, “ S630 ” 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. 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 § 102 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 107791641A) , provided in the Information Disclosure Statement . The English machine translation of Lin et al. is attached and is referenced below. Regarding Claim 1, Lin et al. teaches a film with multiple layers comprising a conductive adhesive layer (Fig. 1, # 3 and Para. [0009]) (i.e. a multilayer conductive tape comprising an adhesive layer), a metallic shielding layer (Fig. 1, # 1) (i.e. an electrically conductive layer positioned on one side of the adhesive layer), an insulating layer (Fig. 1, #2) positioned on one side of the metallic shielding layer, and a first protective layer (Fig. 1, #4) positioned on one side of the insulating layer and configured for protecting an outer surface of the insulating layer. Regarding Claim 2, Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Lin et al. further teaches the metallic shielding layer (i.e. electrically conductive layer) may comprise a copper foil or aluminum foil (Para. [0038]). Regarding Claim 3 , Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Lin et al. further teaches the insulating layer is a polyimide layer (Para. [0013]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 107791641A) provided in the Information Disclosure Statement. Regarding Claim 4 , Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Lin et al. further teaches the insulating layer is selected from one of an ink layer and a polyimide layer (Para. [0013], [0040]). While Lin et al. does not teach a second insulating layer positioned on one side of the protective layer, a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza 124 USPQ 70 (See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). Further, it would be o bvious to one of ordinary skill to include a plurality of insulating layers such as for enhanced adhesion strength (Para. [0059]). Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 107791641A) in view of Ye et al. (CN 211367457U) , both provided in the Information Disclosure Statement. The English machine translation of Ye et al. is attached and is referenced below. Regarding Claim 5 , Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Lin et al. further teaches the conductive adhesive layer comprises at least one of epoxy resin, acrylic resin, urethane resin, silicone rubber resin, poly(p-cycloxylene) resin, bismaleimide resin, and polyimide resin (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein the adhesive layer includes a resin having adhesiveness). Lin et al. does not teach the adhesive layer includes a substrate wherein the substrate is in the form of a mesh. However, Ye et al. teaches a conductive tape (Para. [0022]) wherein an adhesive layer (Fig. 1, #8) is provided with a coating layer (Fig. 1, #7) (i.e. includes a substrate) wherein the coating layer is provided with a mesh fabric (Para. [0011]) (i.e. wherein the substrate is in the form of a mesh). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive tape of Lin et al. to incorporate the teaching of providing a layer with a mesh fabric as taught by Ye et al., as providing a mesh fabric (i.e. substrate wherein the substrate is in the form of a mesh) prevents cracking (Para. [0011], [0025]) . Regarding Claim 6 , Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above Lin et al. further teaches the conductive adhesive layer comprises at least one of epoxy resin, acrylic resin, urethane resin, silicone rubber resin, poly(p-cycloxylene) resin, bismaleimide resin, and polyimide resin and conductive particles (Para. [ 0014 ] , [0042] ) (i.e. the resin includes an electrically conductive material). Claim s 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al. (JP2019160741A) in view of Su et al. (CN113097658A) and Lin et al. (CN 107791641A ) , all provided in the Information Disclosure Statement. The . The English machine translation s of Tanimoto et al. , Su et al., and Lin et al. are attached and referenced below. Regarding Claim 7, Tanimoto et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, #20) including a positive electrode and negative electrode facing each other via a separator forming a cell (Para. [0025]) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Para. [0027]) (i.e. an electrode assembly in which one or more electrodes and separation membranes are alternately stacked to define polarities of the electrode assembly) and an exterior body houses an electrode assembly inside (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a battery case in which the electrode assembly is accommodated), wherein a positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal protrude from the outer surface of the battery cell (Para. [0014]) (i.e. electrode tabs protruding from the electrode assembly for each of the polarities of the electrode assembly). Tanimoto et al. does not teach the electrode tabs being stacked and welded together, an electrode lead stacked with and connected to the electrode tab and partially protruding to the outside of the battery case and the multi layer conductive tape according to claim 1. However, Su et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery (Para. [0001]) comprising multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) connected to an led out from the battery cell body, used to conduct the current from the positive and negative electrodes and stacking multiple positive electrode foil tabs and multiple negative electrode foil tabs (Para. [0020], [0024]) (i.e. electrode tabs protruding from the electrode assembly for each of the polarities of the electrode assembly, the electrode tabs being stacked) and comprising a negative and positive conductive sheet (Fig. 7, #3) (i.e. electrode lead) stacked and welded to the multiple negative electrode foil tabs and positive electrode foil tabs, respectively (Para. [0058]) (i. e . and welded together , the electrode lead stacked with and connected to the electrode tab) and conductive sheet is partially protruding to the outside of the battery case (see Fig. 7, #3, section that is non-overlapping with the foil tabs) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanimoto et al. to incorporate the teaching of the foil tabs and conductive sheet structure as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. does not teach the multilayer conductive tape according to claim 1. However, Lin et al. teaches a film with multiple layers comprising a conductive adhesive layer (Fig. 1, #3 and Para. [0009]) (i.e. a multilayer conductive tape comprising an adhesive layer), a metallic shielding layer (Fig. 1, # 1) (i.e. an electrically conductive layer positioned on one side of the adhesive layer), an insulating layer (Fig. 1, #2) positioned on one side of the metallic shielding layer, and a first protective layer (Fig. 1, #4) positioned on one side of the insulating layer and configured for protecting an outer surface of the insulating layer (i.e. the multilayer conductive tape according to claim 1) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multilayer conductive tape according to claim 1 as taught by Lin et al., as such a tape would provide an insulating layer formed of a polyimide layer enhancing adhesion strength (Para. [0059]). Regarding Claim 8 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above . Su et al. further teaches a protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) on both an upper side and lower side in a stacking direction at a position where multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) (i.e. electrode tabs) and conductive sheet (Fig. 7, #3) (i.e. electrode lead) are stacked and connected (i.e. where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are stacked and connected) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer conductive tape of Tanimoto et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of the protective tape on both an upper side and lower side in a stacking direction at a position where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are stacked and connected as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Regarding Claim 9 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above. Su et al. further teaches a protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) on both an upper side and lower side in a stacking direction at a position where multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) (i.e. electrode tabs) and conductive sheet (Fig. 7, #3) (i.e. electrode lead) overlap and are connected (i.e. covers at least a part of the secondary battery where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are connected and overlap ) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer conductive tape of Tanimoto et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of the protective tape on both an upper side and lower side in a stacking direction at a position where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are overlapped and connected as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Regarding Claim 10 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above. Su et al. further teaches a protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) wherein a width in direction of the conductive sheet (i.e. electrode lead) extends to the multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) (i.e. electrode tabs) is greater than width of the portion of the secondary battery where the and conductive sheet and multilayer foil tabs overlap and are connected (see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer conductive tape of Tanimoto et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of the protective tape structure as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Regarding Claim 11 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above. Su et al. further teaches a protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) extends in a width direction from covering an edge of the bare cell (Para. [0021]) to where the conductive sheet and multilayer foil tabs overlap (see Fig. 7, wherein #2 and #3 overlap) (i.e. ends of one surface and the other surface of the electrode assembly facing the battery case to at least a part of a portion of the second battery in which the electrode tab and the electrode lead are connected and overlap) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer conductive tape of Tanimoto et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of the protective tape structure as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Regarding Claim 12 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above. Su et al. further teaches wherein the protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) seals the contact surface between the conductive sheet (Fig. 7, #3) and the multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) and covering an edge of the bare cell (Para. [0021] and Fig. 7, #1 ) (i.e. wherein the multilayer conductive tape seals contact surfaces among the electrode tab, the electrode lead, and the battery case). Regarding Claim 13 , Tanimoto et al. as modified by Su et al. and Lin et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above. Su et al. further teaches a protective tape (Fig. 7, #5) on both an upper side and lower side of a region where multilayer foil tabs (Fig. 7, #2) (i.e. electrode tabs) and conductive sheet (Fig. 7, #3) (i.e. electrode lead) are stacked and overlap in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the multilayer foil tabs extend (i.e. where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are stacked and overlap ) and wherein the cell may be bent (Para. [0067] and Fig. 8) (i.e. wherein protective tape at an upper side and a lower side positioned in a portion where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are not positioned in the direction perpendicular to the direction in which the electrode lead extends are adhered to each other and sealed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer conductive tape of Tanimoto et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of the protective tape on both an upper side and lower side in a stacking direction at a position where the electrode tab and the electrode lead are stacked and connected as taught by Su et al., as it would ensure reliability of the terminal connections, avoid short circuits and prevent deformation without affecting the energy density and cycle performance of the battery cell (Para. [0031]). Claim s 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwon et al. (US 2016/0175979) in view of Park et al. (US 10,693,177) and Ito et al. (US 2018/0019501). Regarding Claim 14, Gwon et al. teaches a method for welding electrode of a secondary battery (Para [0036]) (i.e. a method of manufacturing a secondary battery) the method comprising alternately stacking anode plates, separator films and cathode plates (Para. [0009]) (i.e. manufacturing an electrode assembly by alternately stacking a plurality of electrodes and separation membranes), performing tack welding for interconnection between a plurality of stacked electrode taps, prior to main welding (Para. [0014]) wherein electrode taps protrude from electrode plates (i.e. performing pre-welding of collecting and welding electrode tabs provided at ends of the plurality of electrodes), and performing main welding to connect electrode taps to lead parts (Para. [0013] ) (i.e. performing main welding by overlapping the ends of the electrode tab and an electrode lead and welding the electrode tab and electrode lead). Gwon et al. does not teach adhering a multilayer conductive tape to either one of or both an upper side and lower side of a region where the electrode tab and the electrode lead overlap and heating and thereby thermocompression bonding an adhesive surface of the multilayer conductive tape. However, Park et al. teaches a conductive adhesive layer between the electrode tab and the electrode lead at the overlap (claim 1) which may comprise two layers (col. 13, lines 45-50) (i.e. adhering a multilayer conductive tape) wherein the adhesive layer is adhered to both an upper side and a lower side a of a region where the electrode tab and the electrode lead overlap (Fig. 6, #128). The substitution of the method of adhering multilayer conductive adhesive layer FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Park et al., for the adhering layer in the method of adhering as taught by Gwon et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing adhesion between an electrode tab and electrode lead (see claim 1 of Park and Para. [0013]) of Gwon et al.). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the method of adhering multilayer conductive adhesive layer FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Park et al., for the adhering layer in the method of adhering as taught by Gwon et al. , as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing adhesion between an electrode tab and electrode lead (see claim 1 of Park and Para. [0013]) of Gwon et al.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Gwon et al. as modified by Park et al. does not teach heating and thereby thermocompression bonding an adhesive surface of the multilayer conductive tape. However, Ito et al. teaches a method of providing a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0093]) wherein adhesive layers of tab films are provided by thermocompression bonding (para. [0087]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Gwon et al. to incorporate the teaching of heating and thereby ther mo compression bonding an adhesive surface of the adhesive layer as taught by Ito et al., as such a method provides a highly reliable structure that is inexpensive and thin (Para. [0152]). Regarding Claim 15, Gwon et al. as modified by Park et al. and Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as explained above. Gwon et al. as modified by Park et al. does not teach heating of the multilayer conductive tape is performed at a temperature of 50 to 300 degrees Celsius at a pressure of 0.2 mpa to 1.0 mpa. However, Ito et al. teaches a method of providing a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0093]) wherein adhesive layers of tab films are provided by thermocompression bonding at 100 degrees and 0.2 MPa (para. [0087]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Gwon et al. to incorporate the teaching of heating and thereby ther mo compression bonding an adhesive surface of the adhesive layer as taught by Ito et al., as such a method provides a highly reliable structure that is inexpensive and thin (Para. [0152]). Regarding Claim 16 , Gwon et al. as modified by Park et al. and Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as explained above. Gwon et al. does not teach adhering a multilayer conductive tape to either one of or both an upper side and lower side of a region where the electrode tab and the electrode lead overlap and wherein the portions in which the multilayer conductive tape adheres to the upper and lower sides are sealed through the thermocompression bonding . However, Park et al. teaches a conductive adhesive layer between the electrode tab and the electrode lead at the overlap (claim 1) which may comprise two layers (col. 13, lines 45-50) (i.e. adhering a multilayer conductive tape) wherein the adhesive layer is adhered to both an upper side and a lower side a of a region where the electrode tab and the electrode lead overlap (Fig. 6, #128). The substitution of the method of adhering multilayer conductive adhesive layer FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Park et al., for the adhering layer in the method of adhering as taught by Gwon et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing adhesion between an electrode tab and electrode lead (see claim 1 of Park and Para. [0013]) of Gwon et al.). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the method of adhering multilayer conductive adhesive layer FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Park et al., for the adhering layer in the method of adhering as taught by Gwon et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing adhesion between an electrode tab and electrode lead (see claim 1 of Park and Para. [0013]) of Gwon et al.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Gwon et al. as modified by Park et al. does not teach thermocompression bonding However, Ito et al. teaches a method of providing a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0093]) wherein adhesive layers of tab films are provided by thermocompression bonding (para. [0087]) which seals the inside (Para. [0008]) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Gwon et al. to incorporate the teaching of heating and thereby ther mo compression bonding to seal as taught by Ito et al., as such a method provides a highly reliable structure that is inexpensive and thin (Para. [0152]). Thus, the upper and lower sides would be sealed through the ther mo compression bonding. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5292 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272-1481 . 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. /ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729