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 . 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the through hole of claims 4 and 19 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites the “a shape of the second region comprises one or more of a rectangle, a square, a triangle, a circle, or another regular or irregular shape,” which fails to further limit claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. Specifically, Applicant has claimed every possible shape that could be imagined for the second region. Rather than limiting the possible shapes of the second region, claim 4 merely states that the shape can be anything. This is not a further limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2020/0277518 A1), hereinafter “Arai,” in view of Tan et al. (CN 213202883 U), hereinafter “Tan.”
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a bonding tape comprising:
a first adhesive layer (¶ [0038], Fig. 3, ref. no. 32a);
a substrate (¶ [0038], Fig. 3, ref. no. 31);
a second adhesive layer (¶ [0038], Fig. 3, ref. no. 32b);
wherein the first and second adhesive layers are located on two sides of the substrate layer (see Fig. 3, ref nos. 32a, 32b, & 31).
The limitations “the first adhesive layer is configured to be bonded to the battery”; “the second region is configured to be bonded to the battery compartment” are functional limitations. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, the adhesive layers disclosed by Arai would be capable of adhering to surfaces, including those belonging to batteries and battery compartments. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Arai does not disclose the original film. However, Tan teaches a bonding tape comprising an original film, in this case the first base film (p. 8, Figs. 3, 7, & 8, ref. no. 211). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to include such a layer on one of the adhesive layers in order to allow easy separation of structures attached to each other by the adhesive (see p. 8). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that placing the original film or first base film on the battery compartment side of the double-sided adhesive would have made it easier to later remove the battery from the battery compartment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an original film on the battery compartment side in order to have facilitated ease of later removing the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Arai does not disclose the original film. Tan is silent as to the ratio of the area of the original film to that of the area free of the original film. However, Tan does teach that battery deformation may occur if the surface area of the connecting part of the pulling main body is small when compared to that of the bonded area (p. 8-9). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the original film relative to the bonding area in order to enable ease of separation while preventing battery deformation, thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of the original film’s surface area to that of the second adhesive layer to correspond to 0.1 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.7 in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 3, Arai does not disclose the original film. Tan is silent as to the ratio of the area of the original film to that of the area free of the original film. However, Tan does teach that battery deformation may occur if the surface area of the connecting part of the pulling main body is small when compared to that of the bonded area (p. 8-9). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the original film relative to the bonding area in order to enable ease of separation while preventing battery deformation, thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of the original film’s surface area to that of the second adhesive layer to correspond to 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.5 in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 4, Arai discloses rectangular adhesive regions (see Fig. 6A, ref. no. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Arai further discloses through holes (¶ [0025], Fig. 1, ref. no. 4). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that it would have been necessary to include matching through holes in the original film so as to preserve the intended function of the through holes in the adhesive layers.
Regarding claim 7, Arai is silent as to the relative thicknesses of the adhesive layers. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to made each adhesive layer to be of sufficient thickness so as to perform the desired function of bonding adjacent components to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of the adhesive layer’s thicknesses (M) to correspond to 1.5 ≤ M ≤ 2.
Regarding claim 8, Arai is silent as to the relative thicknesses of the adhesive layers. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to made each adhesive layer to be of sufficient thickness so as to perform the desired function of bonding adjacent components to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the first adhesive layer’s thickness to be 5 μm to 40 μm and/or the second adhesive layer’s thickness to be 10 μm to 50 μm.
Regarding claim 9, Arai is silent as to the relative thicknesses of the adhesive layers. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to made each adhesive layer to be of sufficient thickness so as to perform the desired function of bonding adjacent components to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the first adhesive layer’s thickness to be 5 μm to 15 μm and/or the second adhesive layer’s thickness to be 10 μm to 25 μm.
Regarding claim 10, Arai does not disclose the disposition of the first region relative to the second region. However, Tan teaches a first region, in this case the first adhesive portion (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 26), and a second region disposed on both sides of the first region in the width direction, in this case the second adhesive portion (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 27). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to position the various regions so as to ensure ease of separating the structures held together by the double-sided adhesive (see p. 8), thereby facilitating improved device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have so arranged the first and second regions in order to have facilitated improved device operation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai and Tan as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Jiang (CN 205301624 U).
Regarding claim 6, Arai does not disclose the granular adhesive. However, Jiang teaches a bonding tape comprising a granular adhesive (p. 3, Fig. 3, ref. no. 5). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the granular adhesive would have provided the desired bonding required of the double-sided adhesive, thereby facilitating device operation. Therefore, it would have obvious to have included a granular adhesive in order to have facilitated device operation.
Arai is silent as to the area occupied by the adhesive. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to sufficiently coat the adhesive layer with the granular adhesive in order to achieve the desired adhesion of the double-sided adhesive tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have covered 30% to 70% of the adhesive layer with the granular adhesive in order to have achieved the desired adhesive effect.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai and Tan as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2018/0277800 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Arai and Tan teach the bonding tape as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, but do not teach the mobile terminal. However, Zhang teaches a mobile terminal, in this case an electronic device (¶ [0037], Fig. 7, ref. no. 100), comprising a battery compartment (¶ [0078], Fig. 7, ref. no. 101) and a battery (¶ [0077], Fig. 7, ref. no. 20), fixed in the battery compartment by double-sided adhesive tape (¶ [0078], Fig. 7, ref. nos. 30 & 60). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it was well known to secure a battery within a battery compartment with bonding tape in order to facilitate device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have secured the battery within the battery compartment with bonding tape in order to have facilitated device operation.
Regarding claim 12, Arai does not disclose the bonding forces. Tan does not specify the bonding forces, but teaches that the bonding forces must be set so as to avoid battery deformation (see p. 9). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made the bonding force of the adhesive with the battery to be less than that of the adhesive with the battery compartment in order to have ensured that the battery could be removed without deformation or damage (see p. 9), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made F1 < F2 in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 13, Arai does not disclose the bonding forces. Tan does not specify the bonding forces, but teaches that the bonding forces must be set so as to avoid battery deformation (see p. 9). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made the bonding force of the adhesive with the battery to be less than that of the adhesive with the battery compartment in order to have ensured that the battery could be removed without deformation or damage (see p. 9), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made F2 – F1 ≥ 700 g/in in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 14, Arai does not disclose a lifting portion. However, Tan teaches a lifting portion, in this case a lifting main body (p. 7, ref. no. 25) comprising:
a first part containing a bonding layer configured to be bonded to the battery, in this case the connecting part is actually bonded to the battery (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 251); and
a second part extending to a side of the battery and facing away from the first adhesive layer, in this case the pulling portion (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 252).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such a lifting portion would have enabled ease of removing the battery from the compartment (see p. 7-8), thereby facilitating improved device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a lifting portion in order to have facilitated improved device operation.
Regarding claim 15, Arai is silent as to the area of the battery relative to the bonded area. However, Tan does teach that battery deformation may occur if the surface area of the connecting part of the pulling main body is small when compared to that of the bonded area (p. 8-9). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the bonding area relative to the size of the battery in order to enable ease of separation while preventing battery deformation, thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of the bonded side of the battery to that of the second region to correspond to 0.3 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 0.9 in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 16, Arai is silent as to the area of the battery relative to the bonded area. However, Tan does teach that battery deformation may occur if the surface area of the connecting part of the pulling main body is small when compared to that of the bonded area (p. 8-9). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the bonding area relative to the size of the battery in order to enable ease of separation while preventing battery deformation, thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of the bonded side of the battery to that of the second region to correspond to 0.5 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 0.9 in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 17, Arai is silent as to the distances between various components. As stated previously, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to position the components relative to each other in order to ensure device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have: (1) made the distance from a head end of the second region to a head end of the substrate layer to be 0.5 mm to 5 mm; (2) made a distance from an ending end of the second region to an ending end of the substrate layer to be 0.5 mm to 5 mm; (3) made the distance from the head end of the substrate layer to a head end of a battery cell in the battery to be 0.2 mm to 5 mm; and/or (4) made a distance from the ending end of the substrate layer to the an ending end of the battery cell in the battery to be 0.2 mm to 5 mm in order to have facilitated device operation.
Regarding claim 18, Arai is silent as to the distances between various components. As stated previously, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to position the components relative to each other in order to ensure device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have: (1) made the distance from a head end of the second region to a head end of the substrate layer to be 3 mm to 5 mm; (2) made a distance from an ending end of the second region to an ending end of the substrate layer to be 3 mm to 5 mm; (3) made the distance from the head end of the substrate layer to a head end of a battery cell in the battery to be 0.5 mm to 3 mm; and/or (4) made a distance from the ending end of the substrate layer to the an ending end of the battery cell in the battery to be 0.5 mm to 3 mm in order to have facilitated device operation.
Regarding claim 19, Arai further discloses through holes (¶ [0025], Fig. 1, ref. no. 4). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that it would have been necessary to include matching through holes in the original film so as to preserve the intended function of the through holes in the adhesive layers.
Regarding claim 20, Arai does not disclose the disposition of the first region relative to the second region. However, Tan teaches a first region, in this case the first adhesive portion (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 26), and a second region disposed on both sides of the first region in the width direction, in this case the second adhesive portion (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 27). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to position the various regions so as to ensure ease of separating the structures held together by the double-sided adhesive (see p. 8), thereby facilitating improved device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have so arranged the first and second regions in order to have facilitated improved device operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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 Ruddock can be reached at (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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights