DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted June 30, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the first inner wall being disposed face the first surface and the second inner wall being disposed face the second surface” but this limitation is grammatically incorrect and should be written, “the first inner wall being disposed to face the first surface and the second inner wall being disposed to face the second surface” or the like. Claim 9 recites “the second portion is located on a side of the first adhesive layer face away from the first end surface” but this limitation is grammatically incorrect and should be written, “the second portion is located on a side of the first adhesive layer facing . Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li CN205723715 in view of Gao CN210040338.
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly (bare battery cell) 10 comprising a first end surface (head), and a first surface and second surface disposed to face away from each other, wherein the first end surface connects the first and second surfaces, a housing (outer packaging bag) 20 accommodating the electrode assembly 10, wherein the housing 20 comprises a first inner wall and a second inner wall disposed opposite to each other, the first inner wall being disposed to face the first surface and the second inner wall being disposed to face the second surface (see annotated Fig 2 below), and a first bonding portion comprising a first adhesive layer 301 and a second adhesive layer 302 provided between the housing 20 and the first adhesive layer 301 wherein the first adhesive layer 301 is bonded to the first end surface and extends to the first and second surfaces to bond with them (“U-shaped structure”, para 0046), and the second adhesive layer comprises a first portion, where the first portion is bonded to the first inner wall (302 is bonded to the inside of the outer packaging bag 20 and has the claimed U-shape and so is bonded to first and second inner walls and first end portion) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-2 and paras 0043-0054). Li does not specifically recite wherein a bonding force between the first portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than a bonding force between the first portion and the first inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the first adhesive layer and the first surface. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery design incorporating adhesives between a battery and its housing in portable applications, Gao discloses that an adhesive layer (first adhesive tape) 101 disposed facing a surface of a battery 20 should have a weak attachment to an adhesive layer (second adhesive tape) 102 disposed facing a surface of the housing in order to facilitate easy disassembly of the battery from its housing/container without destroying the battery itself (see e.g. paras 0032-0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery cell of Li such that a bonding force between the first portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than a bonding force between the first portion and the first inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the first adhesive layer and the first surface because Gao teaches that this design facilitates easy disassembly from its housing/container as needed without destroying the battery itself.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, the skilled artisan would expect that every section of the adhesive structure, i.e. first and second adhesive layers, would need to incorporate the benefit of Gao such that the skilled artisan would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery cell of Li and Goa such that the second adhesive layer further comprises a second portion connecting to the first portion, wherein the second portion is located on a side of the first adhesive layer face away from the first end surface, and the bonding force between the first portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than a bonding force between the second portion and the first adhesive layer and wherein the second adhesive layer further comprises a third portion opposite the first portion, wherein the third portion is bonded to the second inner wall, and a bonding force between the third portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than a bonding force between the third portion and the second inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the first adhesive layer and the second surface because Gao teaches that this design provides easy and nondestructive disassembly of the cell from its housing. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 4, Li modified by Gao does not specifically recite that the bonding forcing between the third portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than the bonding force between the second portion and the first adhesive layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine how weak each interaction should be between adhesive layers in order to best form a non-destructive and easy way to disassemble the battery of Li and Gao since Gao teaches that this design facilitates easy disassembly from its housing/container as needed without destroying the battery itself and the skilled artisan would be capable of adjusting bonding forces to tune the ideal disassembly parameters such that that the bonding forcing between the third portion and the first adhesive layer is smaller than the bonding force between the second portion and the first adhesive layer. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches that the first bonding portion adhesive pieces 30 are wrapped around the bare cell 10 and although Li does not specify the location of a centrosymmetric line of the first bonding portion such that it coincides with a centrosymmetric line of the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to e.g. cover the first and second sides of the cell from edge to edge with the adhesive 30 (which would necessitate that the elements share a centrosymmetric line) because this would ensure the most secure attachment of the adhesive to the cell surfaces and would require only a selection of size and location.
The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Finally, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6, Li further discloses a second end surface away from the first end surface and connecting to the first and second surfaces wherein the same configuration of adhesive elements is applied to a second bonding portion 30 as was described in the rejection of Claims 1-4 (incorporated herein in their entireties) with respect to the first bonding portion 30 such that the second bonding portion comprises a third adhesive layer and a fourth adhesive layer, wherein the third adhesive layer is bonded to the second end surface and extends to the first surface and the second surface to bond with the first surface and the second surface, and the fourth adhesive layer comprises a fourth portion, a fifth portion, and a sixth portion connected in sequence, wherein the fifth portion is located on a side of the third adhesive layer face away from the second end surface, the fourth portion is bonded to the first inner wall, and a bonding force between the fourth portion and the third adhesive layer is smaller than a bonding force between the fourth portion and the first inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the third adhesive layer and the first surface.
Regarding Claim 7, Li modified by Gao does not specifically recite that the bonding forcing between the sixth portion and the third adhesive layer is smaller than the bonding force between the second portion and the second inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the third adhesive layer and the second surface. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine how weak each interaction should be between adhesive layers in order to best form a non-destructive and easy way to disassemble the battery of Li and Gao since Gao teaches that this design facilitates easy disassembly from its housing/container as needed without destroying the battery itself and the skilled artisan would be capable of adjusting bonding forces to tune the ideal disassembly parameters such that that the bonding forcing between the sixth portion and the third adhesive layer is smaller than the bonding force between the second portion and the second inner wall and smaller than a bonding force between the third adhesive layer and the second surface. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches that the first bonding portion adhesive pieces 30 are wrapped around the bare cell 10 and although Li does not specify the location of a centrosymmetric line of the second bonding portion such that it coincides with a centrosymmetric line of the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to e.g. cover the first and second sides of the cell from edge to edge with the adhesive 30 (which would necessitate that the elements share a centrosymmetric line) because this would ensure the most secure attachment of the adhesive to the cell surfaces and would require only a selection of size and location.
The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Finally, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, the rejections over Li modified by Gao, above, of Claims 1-8 encompass limitations of Claim 9 directed to the first bonding portion and its components and are incorporated herein. Further, Li teaches a second adhesive layer comprising a first portion, second portion, and a third portion connected in sequence (wrapping around a lower end of the battery cell, including a second end opposing the first end; see annotated fig). The second portion of the second adhesive layer is located on a side of the first adhesive layer facing away from the first end surface, the first portion is bonded to the first inner wall but is not bonded to the first adhesive layer since the first adhesive layer is a separate element, and the second portion is bonded to the second inner wall but not bonded to the first adhesive layer opposite the second inner wall because the first adhesive layer is a separate element.
Regarding Claim 10, Li further discloses a second end surface away from the first end surface and connecting to the first and second surfaces wherein the same configuration of adhesive elements is applied to a second bonding portion 30 as was described in the rejection of Claims 1-4 and 9 (incorporated herein in their entireties) with respect to the first bonding portion 30 such that the second bonding portion comprises a third adhesive layer and a fourth adhesive layer, wherein the third adhesive layer is bonded to the second end surface and extends to the first surface and the second surface to bond with the first surface and the second surface, and the fourth adhesive layer comprises a fourth portion, a fifth portion, and a sixth portion connected in sequence, wherein the fifth portion is located on a side of the third adhesive layer face away from the second end surface, the fourth portion is bonded to the first inner wall, and a bonding force between the fourth portion and the third adhesive layer is absent between the fourth portion and the first inner wall and absent a bonding force between the third adhesive layer and the first surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Li fails to specifically disclose an electronic device comprising the battery of Claim 1 However, Gao teaches that such battery are used in smartphones or tablets (para 0004) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the battery of Li modified by Gao in an electronic device sch as a smartphone or tablet since Gao teaches that this is a use for which such a battery is designed, and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Myers US PG Publication 2009/0274953 discloses an adhesive layer 540 used between a battery and its housing that is designed such that the adhesive strength is specifically selected to ensure that the battery remains coupled to its housing while allowing easy removal when necessary (para 0031).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729