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 .
Claim Status
Claims 7 and 14 have been amended and new claim 15 has been added. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 08/05/20265 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments with respects to the use of the word “about” as a relative term are persuasive. By applicant’s own specification definition of the term “about,” examiner will interpret the ranges of claims 6, 10, and 13 as “within one of more standard deviations, or within +/- 30%, 20%, 10%, or 5% of the stated value” ([0245]), with the understanding that the broadest of these definitions will still read on the claimed ranges.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretzmer (U.S. 20250129275) in view of Hanai et al. (U.S. 20120270042).
With respect to claims 1-5, and 8, Kretzmer discloses a sealing tape (pressure-sensitive adhesive tape) for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0001]; [0006]), the sealing tape comprising:
a base layer (pressure-sensitive adhesive) wherein:
the base layer comprises a first (meth)acrylic copolymer (poly (meth)acrylates) ([abstract]);
the first (meth)acrylic copolymer comprises:
a moiety derived from a first (meth)acrylate-based compound having a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group (ii: methyl methacrylate, [0061]; thus reading on claim 2);
a moiety derived from an acrylate-based compound having a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl group (iii: isobornyl methacrylate, [0061]; thus reading on claim 3) and
a moiety derived from a third (meth)acrylate-based compound having a C1 to C20 alkyl group substituted with a phenoxy group (i: phenoxyethyl acrylate, [0061]), thus reading on claim 4);
Kretzmer does not disclose a separate adhesive layer on the base layer, the adhesive layer comprises a second (meth)acrylic copolymer and a crosslinking agent; and the second (meth)acrylic copolymer comprises: a moiety derived from a fourth (meth)acrylate-based compound having a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group. Kretzmer does however disclose that a cross-linking agent is present in the base layer to cross-link the (meth)acrylates compounds in a first monomer with a second monomer (i.e. component ii – methyl methacrylate, thus reading on the fourth (meth)acrylate-based compound limited by claim 2) composition in order to establish high cohesion ([0034]). Thus, Kretzmer effectively combines the adhesive layer as claimed with the base layer, instead of separating the two.
Hanai discloses a sealing tape (31 – pressure-sensitive adhesive tape) comprising an adhesive layer (2 – pressure-sensitive adhesive layer) and teaches the adhesive layer comprises an acrylic polymer including an alkyl (meth)acrylate, specifically a methyl group containing alkyl(meth)acrylate ([0025]), crosslinked by a cross-link agent (0050]) (specifically an isocyanate compound ([0051]), thus reading on claim 5). Hanai further teaches that the cross-linking of the copolymer provides a more excellent shear adhesive strength ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the adhesive layer taught by Hanai to the base layer disclosed by Kretzmer in order to provide a more excellent shear adhesive strength.
Applicant is reminded that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this instance, the preamble merely states intended use of the sealing tape within a rechargeable lithium battery, and therefore is not considered a limitation. Further, the prior art is clear that the relevance of chemical resistance for the usage of pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes goes as far as to the extent that many requirement profiles for corresponding pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes, for example from the automotive or electronics industry, set specific minimum stipulations with regard to chemical resistance, which corresponding pressure-sensitive adhesives must achieve in order to be approved for usage. Thus, the use of the sealing tape within a battery of an automobile or other electronic is inherent.
With respect to claim 6, Kretzmer discloses the first (meth)acrylic copolymer (ii) comprises 40-65 mass % ([0057]), thus overlapping the claimed range of about 30 to 50 wt%,
the second (meth)acrylate-based compound (iii) comprises 7.5-35 mass % of ([0057]), thus overlapping the claimed range of about 30% to 70%, and
the third (meth)acrylate-based compound (i) comprises 7.5-35 mass % ,[0057]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 to 20%.
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is also noted that weight is a function of mass when gravity is considered, therefore the relative amounts of each compound would be the same.
Claim 7 attempts to limit a strain rate of the base layer based on impregnation conditions of the base layer when impregnated with the electrolyte. However, the impregnation conditions are a product by process limitation. Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Additionally, the resultant property claimed by the process, the strain rate, is presume to be an inherent property. Applicant is reminded that Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this instance, it has been shown in the above rejection of claim 1 that the base layer of the prior art has substantially identical structure as that of the prior art. Therefore, its strain rate would be inherently similar to that of the prior art.
With respect to claim 8, Kretzmer discloses the base layer further comprises a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (carrier layer) ([0069]).
With respect to claim 9, Kretzmer discloses the base layer comprises:
a first base layer (carrier layer) comprising a first PET film ([0069);
a second base layer comprising the first meth(acrylic) copolymer (see above rejection of claim 1); and
a third base layer (carrier layer) comprising PET ([0069]), which are sequentially stacked (“the carrier layer is provided on both sides with a pressure-sensitive adhesive of the invention” ([0069]).
With respect to claim 10, Kretzmer discloses 0.05% by weight of the crosslinking agent based on the second (meth)acrylic copolymer [0034];[0083]), thus falling into the claimed range of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight.
With respects to claims 11-12, Kretzmer discloses the second (meth)acrylic copolymer is cross-linked using the crosslinking agent (see above rejection of claim 1), and further details how the crosslinking is only a “partial crosslinking" [0034]) ). In this instance, the crosslinking would have both the linear comprising the second (meth)acrylic copolymer and the semi-IPN crosslinked structure (shown in applicant’s Fig. 3) simultaneously as it is still considered “flowable,” thus reading on claims 11-12.
With respect to claim 13, Kretzmer discloses a sealing tape with a combined base layer and adhesive layer (see above rejection of claim 1), thus Kretzmer does not disclose the thickness of just the adhesive layer.
Hanai discloses an adhesive layer (see above rejection of claim 1) and teaches the thickness of the adhesive layer is 1 to 15 micrometers ([0058]), thus overlapping the claimed range of about 5 to 150 micrometers. Hanai further teaches that this thickness has sufficient adhesive strength without adding excessive volume ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure that the adhesive layer disclosed by modified Kretzmer had the thickness taught by Hanai in order to have sufficient adhesive strength without adding excessive volume.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretzmer in view of Hanai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (U.S. 20160141560).
With respect to claims 14-15, modified Kretzmer discloses a sealing tape (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the sealing tape is placed in a gap between a battery case and an electrode assembly impregnated with an electrolyte solution within a rechargeable lithium battery.
Lim discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0036]), comprising:
an electrode assembly (120) (Fig. 6);
an electrolyte solution impregnated into the electrode assembly ([0048]);
a battery case (27) accommodating the electrode assembly (120) (Fig. 6); and
a sealing tape (600) in between the inner wall of the battery case (27) and the electrode assembly (120) (Fig. 6). Lim further teaches that the finishing tape in this location within the battery protects the electrode assembly from external impact and damage ([00456]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the sealing tape disclosed by modified Kretzmer in the gap between the battery case and electrode assembly as taught by Lim in order to protect the electrode assembly from external impact and damage.
The limitation “is configured to reduce a gap between the electrode assembly and the inner wall of the battery case upon impregnation with the electrolyte solution,” is an example of intended use. Applicant is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this instance, as the prior art details the claimed structure of the sealing tape of claim 1, thus the sealing tape would inherently be able to perform the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-22 of response, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the drawing objections and claims 6-7, 10, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6-7, 10, and 13 have been withdrawn in light of the arguments and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-22 of response, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Lobert and Furuta have been fully considered and are persuasive on the grounds that Lobert applies to a different technical field and operation environment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Kretzmer and Hanai.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the presence of other components in the sealing tape, such as urethane acrylate or an acid component, is not persuasive, as components in the sealing tape are defined by “comprising,” which does not limit the claimed sealing tape to exclusively having the claimed components. Additionally, arguments made regarding the lack of motivation to combine and different technical purposes of the prior art are also not persuasive, as the motivation to combine pieces of prior art does not need to match the purpose of the invention in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, the applicant repeatedly stresses that it is the three-dimensional shape realization and gap-filling/flow-prevention ability of the adhesive (base layer) which yields the inventive concept of the tape. However, these limitations are not mentioned in claim 1, therefore they have no bearing on the examination or consideration of the claims. As the expandable/gap-filling nature of the base layer when in contact with (electrolyte) fluid is the applicant’s source of novelty, not merely the (meth)acrylate compounds being present in a polymer in the tape, examiner suggests adding language in claim 1 to reflect the relationship between the electrolyte and base layer. This amendment will also provide further support for novelty of this sealing tape specifically within a battery, not just polymer tapes in general, the use of which is batteries are well-known.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights