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 .
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 12-20 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 12 recite a “male-butadiene rubber” as one of the possible compositions of the binder in the first adhesive layer. The term “male-butadiene rubber” does not appear to have a recognized meaning in the art, and the specification does not define what material is encompassed by this term. Accordingly, the materials that can comprise the binder in the first adhesive layer are unclear, thereby rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and claims 13-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the secondary battery”, “the adhesive member”, and “the electrode assembly” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. More specifically, claim 12 recites an electronic apparatus comprising “the secondary battery”, but does not previously introduce a secondary battery. Claim 12 also recites “the adhesive member” as being adhered to “the electrode assembly” without previously introducing an adhesive member or an electrode assembly. Accordingly, the structural relationship among the electronic apparatus, secondary battery, adhesive member, and electrode assembly is unclear, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Claims 13-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takamura discloses a battery ([0077]) that comprises both a battery element corresponding to the claimed electrode assembly ([0002] and [0077] – [0078]) and an adhesive tape corresponding to the claimed adhesive member ([0020]).
Takamura further discloses that the adhesive tape is adhered to the battery element ([0016]) and that the adhesive tape comprises a substrate layer and an adhesive layer, where the adhesive layer is placed on a surface of the substrate layer ([0009]).
Takamura even further discloses that the adhesive layer can comprise an isoprene rubber, a styrene-butadiene rubber, or an ethylene-propylene rubber that corresponds to the claimed binder ([0024]). It is also disclosed that the adhesive layer can further comprise a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer and an isobutylene-isoprene rubber ([0024]), both of which correspond to the claimed first resin.
Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the adhesive-layer components corresponding to the claimed binder and first resin have mass percentages based on a mass of the first adhesive layer of 65%-95% and 5%-35%, respectively.
Zhong, drawn to battery art ([0039]), discloses an adhesive tape comprising a conductive layer disposed between two adhesive layers ([0006] – [0007]). Zhong further discloses that the first and second adhesive layers comprise a plasticizer material and an insulating adhesive polymer material ([0024] - [0027]). Zhong teaches that the plasticizer material and the insulating adhesive polymer material may both comprise EPR, SBR, IR, SEBS or IIR, among other materials ([0024] – [0031]). Zhong also teaches that the adhesive layer preferably has content of plasticizer material from 10% to 40% by weight and a content of the insulating adhesive polymer material from 60% to 90% by weight ([0026]). It is additionally disclosed by Zhong that the materials composing the plasticizer and the insulating adhesive polymer are purposely selected to ensure that the adhesive layer composition thermally softens between 60-120°C ([0024] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relative amounts of Takamura’s adhesive layer components corresponding to the claimed binder and first resin according to the proportions taught by Zhong. Both references relate to battery adhesive tapes having adhesive layers consisting of similar components and Zhong teaches that it was well known in the art to modify the proportions of those components. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Takamura and Zhong would have resulted in the predicable outcome of having the components in Takamura’s adhesive layer be present in proportions consistent with the ranges claimed [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed above in claim 1, Takamura in view of Zhong teaches that the plasticizer material corresponding to the claimed first resin may be from 10% to 40% by weight of the adhesive layer. This disclosed range encompasses both of the claimed first resin mass percentage ranges of 10%-25% and 15%-20%. The courts have stated, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Takamura in view of Zhong renders obvious the claimed mass percentage ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Takamura further discloses that the adhesive layer can additionally comprise petroleum resins and polyterpene resins corresponding to the claimed second resin ([0031]). Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the resins corresponding to the claimed second resin have a mass percentage of 2% to 5% of the adhesive layer.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Zhong teaches that the adhesive layer is comprised of both an insulating adhesive polymer material and a plasticizer material and expressly provides weight percentage ranges for each component. As further discussed with respect to claim 1, Zhong teaches that the plasticizing material is used in combination with the insulating adhesive polymer material to ensure that the adhesive layer composition thermally softens at an appropriate temperature. Accordingly, Zhong indicates that the composition of the adhesive layer, including the relative amount of its constituent materials, is a formulation parameter pertinent to obtaining desired thermal softening characteristics. The courts have stated, “[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” [MPEP 2144.05 (II)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the adhesive layer composition teachings of Zhong to have selected an appropriate amount of Takamura’s additionally disclosed petroleum or polyterpene resin corresponding to the claimed second resin, including the claimed 2-5% by mass of the entire adhesive layer. Doing so would have amounted to no more than the routine optimization of the adhesive layer composition to obtain suitable thermal softening characteristics.
Regarding claim 6, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Takamura does not expressly disclose that the softening point of the adhesive layer is from 100°C to 120°C. Zhong, however, teaches that its first adhesive layer is designed to soften at 60°C to 120°C ([0023]). The courts have stated, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. As discussed with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to use the disclosures of Zhong to adjust the relative amounts of Takamura’s adhesive-layer components to obtain suitable thermal softening characteristics for the adhesive layer. In light of this modification discussed in claim 1, the adhesive layer softening range property disclosed by Zhong would be incorporated into the adhesive layer of Takamura. Therefore, Takamura in view of Zhong renders obvious the claimed softening point range.
Regarding claim 7, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Takamura further discloses that the adhesive tape has an anchoring force corresponding to the claimed peel strength that is preferably between 6 N/19 mm and 18 N/19 mm (About 316 N/m to 947 N/m; [0061]). The anchoring force disclosed by Takamura overlaps with the claimed peel strength range of 50-400 N/m, rendering it prima facie obviousness [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Although Takamura characterizes the anchoring force as a property of the adhesive tape, Takamura does teach that the anchoring force reflects the adhesion between the adhesive layer and the substrate layer ([0061]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the anchoring force taught by Takamura to be a desired characteristic of the adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 8, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Takamura further discloses that the substrate layer can be comprised of polyethylene terephthalates, polyimides, or polypropylenes ([0048]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A) and Ogata (US 2014/0227603 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed above in claim 1, Takamura discloses that both styrene-ethylene-butene-styrene block copolymer and butyl rubber can be present in the adhesive layer of the adhesive tape. Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the mass ratio of styrene-ethylene-butene-styrene block copolymer to butyl rubber is 1:2 to 2:1.
Ogata, drawn to battery art ([0006] – [0007]), discloses an adhesive rein composition for use in a secondary battery ([0007]). Ogata further discloses that the adhesive rein composition comprises a resin A and a resin B ([0035] – [0037]). Ogata even further discloses that resin A can be selected to be isoprene-isobutylene copolymer and that resin B can be selected to be SEBS ([0038] – [0043]). It is also taught by Ogata that resin A and resin B may present in the adhesive rein composition in a mass ratio of 1:0.01 to 0.01:1 ([0047]).
It would have been obvious for some of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative amounts of the SEBS and butyl rubber components taught by Takamura in accordance with the mass ratios disclosed by Ogata. Both references disclose adhesive compositions for secondary battery applications and Ogata expressly teaches that an adhesive composition may include an isoprene-isobutylene copolymer and SEBS at a mass ratio that encompasses the claimed range. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Takamura and Ogata would have resulted in the predictable outcome of Takamura’s adhesive layer composition having a SEBS to butyl rubber ratio consistent with the one claimed [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A) and Maeda et al (US 2017/0346130 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Takamura in view of Zhong discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the secondary battery has a housing, wherein the adhesive tape is disposed between the electrode assembly and the housing with the adhesive layer being adhered to an outer surface of the electrode assembly. Takamura also does not expressly disclose that the adhesive member further comprises a second adhesive layer, the substrate layer comprises a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other, the first adhesive layer is disposed on the first surface, the second adhesive layer is disposed on the second surface, and the second adhesive layer is adhered to an inner surface of the housing, wherein the second adhesive layer comprises a styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer.
Maeda, drawn to battery art (abstract), discloses a double-sided tape corresponding to the claimed adhesive member ([0001]). Maeda further discloses that the double-sided tape comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and a heat sensitive adhesive layer disposed on opposite surfaces of a substrate ([0011]). Maeda even further discloses that the double-sided tape is used between a pouch-type outer casing and an electrode constituent body ([0010]). It is additionally disclosed by Maeda that the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer corresponding to the claimed first adhesive layer is adhered to an outer surface of the electrode constituent body ([0013] and [0119]) and the heat-sensitive adhesive layer corresponding to the claimed secondary adhesive layer is adhered to an inner surface of the pouch-type outer casing ([0013] and [0122]). Maeda also discloses that the heat-sensitive adhesive layer can be comprised of styrene-isoprene-styrene block polymer ([0031] – [0032] and [0038]). Maeda teaches that utilization of the double-sided tape in this manner prevents unwinding of the electrode constituent body when impacted by an external force ([0010]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have taken the adhesive tape disclosed by Takamura and incorporated an additional adhesive layer on the substrate so that the adhesive tape could be adhered between the electrode assembly and the housing of a secondary battery as taught Maeda. Both Takamura and Maeda teach the use of adhesive members in a secondary battery and Maeda provides the motivation for incorporating an additional adhesive layer into an adhesive member so that the adhesive member can be placed between an electrode assembly and the housing of a secondary battery. Accordingly, the combination of Takamura and Maeda would have resulted in the predictable result of a secondary battery with an electrode assembly less prone to unwinding.
Regarding claim 11, Takamura in view of Zhong and Maeda discloses the secondary battery as discussed above in claim 9. Maeda further discloses that housing is a pouch-type outer casing ([0013]), which corresponds to the claimed packaging bag.
Claims 12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A), and Chen (CN 114262574 A) cited through US equivalent (US 2023/0193084 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takamura discloses a battery ([0077]) that comprises both a battery element corresponding to the claimed electrode assembly ([0002] and [0077] – [0078]) and an adhesive tape corresponding to the claimed adhesive member ([0020]).
Takamura further discloses that the adhesive tape is adhered to the battery element ([0016]) and that the adhesive tape comprises a substrate layer and an adhesive layer, where the adhesive layer is placed on a surface of the substrate layer ([0009]).
Takamura even further discloses that the adhesive layer can comprise an isoprene rubber, a styrene-butadiene rubber, or an ethylene-propylene rubber that corresponds to the claimed binder ([0024]). It is also disclosed that the adhesive layer can further comprise a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer and an isobutylene-isoprene rubber ([0024]), both of which correspond to the claimed first resin.
Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose the relative mass percentages of the adhesive-layer components corresponding to the claimed binder and first resin based on the total mass of the first adhesive layer.
Zhong, drawn to battery art ([0039]), discloses an adhesive tape comprising a conductive layer disposed between two adhesive layers ([0006] – [0007]). Zhong further discloses that the first and second adhesive layers comprise a plasticizer material and an insulating adhesive polymer material ([0024] - [0027]). Zhong teaches that the plasticizer material and the insulating adhesive polymer material may both comprise EPR, SBR, IR, SEBS or IIR, among other materials ([0024] – [0031]). Zhong also teaches that the adhesive layer preferably has content of plasticizer material from 10% to 40% by weight and a content of the insulating adhesive polymer material from 60% to 90% by weight ([0026]). It is additionally disclosed by Zhong that the materials composing the plasticizer and the insulating adhesive polymer are purposely selected to ensure that the adhesive layer composition thermally softens between 60-120°C ([0024] and 0032]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relative amounts of Takamura’s adhesive layer components corresponding to the claimed binder and first resin according to the proportions taught by Zhong. Both references relate to battery adhesive tapes having adhesive layers consisting of similar components and Zhong teaches that it was well known in the art to modify the proportions of those components. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Takamura and Zhong would have resulted in the predicable outcome of having the components in Takamura’s adhesive layer be present in proportions consistent with the ranges claimed [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Takamura also does not expressly state that the battery disclosed is included in an electronic apparatus. Chen, drawn to battery art ([0004]), discloses an electronic apparatus that includes an electrochemical apparatus, wherein the electrochemical apparatus may be a secondary battery ([0107] and [0077]). Chen further discloses that the electrochemical apparatus contains an adhesive tape ([0033]), where the adhesive tape is adhered to an electrode assembly ([0076]) and [0133]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the battery of Takamura into the electronic apparatus disclosed by Chen. Both Takamura and Chen teach batteries that utilize an adhesive tape in tandem with an electrode assembly. Since Chen already teaches the use of its battery in an electronic apparatus, using the similar battery of Takamura in the electronic apparatus instead would have amounted to nothing more than the simple substitution of one battery for another to obtain the predictable result of a device used to power an electronic apparatus ([MPEP 2143 (I) (B)].
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. As discussed above in claim 12, Takamura in view of Zhong teaches that the plasticizer material corresponding to the claimed first resin may be from 10% to 40% by weight of the adhesive layer. This disclosed range encompasses both of the claimed first resin mass percentage ranges of 10%-25% and 15%-20%. The courts have stated, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Takamura in view of Zhong renders obvious the claimed mass percentage ranges.
Regarding claim 16, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. Takamura further discloses that the adhesive layer can additionally comprise petroleum resins and polyterpene resins corresponding to the claimed second resin ([0031]). Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the resins corresponding to the claimed second resin have a mass percentage of 2% to 5% of the adhesive layer.
As discussed above with respect to claim 12, Zhong teaches that the adhesive layer is comprised of both an insulating adhesive polymer material and a plasticizer material and expressly provides weight percentage ranges for each component. As further discussed with respect to claim 12, Zhong teaches that the plasticizing material is used in combination with the insulating adhesive polymer material to ensure that the adhesive layer composition thermally softens at an appropriate temperature. Accordingly, Zhong indicates that the composition of the adhesive layer, including the relative amount of its constituent materials, is a formulation parameter pertinent to obtaining desired thermal softening characteristics. The courts have stated, “[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” [MPEP 2144.05 (II)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the adhesive layer composition teachings of Zhong to have selected an appropriate amount of Takamura’s additionally disclosed petroleum or polyterpene resin corresponding to the claimed second resin, including the claimed 2%-5% by mass of the entire adhesive layer. Doing so would have amounted to no more than the routine optimization of the adhesive layer composition to obtain suitable thermal softening characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. Takamura does not expressly disclose that the softening point of the adhesive layer is between 100°C to 120°C. Zhong, however, teaches that its first adhesive layer is designed to soften at 60°C to 120°C ([0023]). The courts have stated, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. As discussed with respect to claim 12, it would have been obvious to use the disclosures of Zhong to adjust the relative amounts of Takamura’s adhesive-layer components to obtain suitable thermal softening characteristics for the adhesive layer. In light of this modification discussed in claim 12, the adhesive layer softening range property disclosed by Zhong would be incorporated into the adhesive layer of Takamura. Therefore, Takamura in view of Zhong renders obvious the claimed softening point range.
Regarding claim 18, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. Takamura further discloses that the adhesive tape has an anchoring force corresponding to the claimed peel strength that is preferably between 6 N/19 mm and 18 N/19 mm (About 316 N/m to 947 N/m; [0061]). The anchoring force disclosed by Takamura overlaps with the claimed peel strength range of 50-400 N/m, rendering it prima facie obviousness [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Although Takamura characterizes the anchoring force as a property of the adhesive tape, Takamura does teach that the anchoring force reflects the adhesion between adhesive layer and the substrate layer ([0061]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the anchoring force taught by Takamura to be a characteristic of the adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 19, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. Takamura further discloses that the substrate layer can be comprised of polyethylene terephthalates, polyimides, or polypropylenes ([0048]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A), Ogata (US 2014/0227603 A1), and Chen (CN 114262574 A) cited through US equivalent (US 2023/0193084 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12. As discussed above in claim 12, Takamura discloses that both styrene-ethylene-butene-styrene block copolymer and butyl rubber can be present in the adhesive layer of the adhesive tape. Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the mass ratio of styrene-ethylene-butene-styrene block copolymer to butyl rubber is 1:2 to 2:1.
Ogata, drawn to battery art ([0006] – [0007]), discloses an adhesive rein composition for use in a secondary battery ([0007]). Ogata further discloses that the adhesive rein composition comprises a resin A and a resin B ([0035] – [0037]). Ogata even further discloses that resin A can be selected to be isoprene-isobutylene copolymer and that resin B can be selected to be SEBS ([0038] – [0043]). It is also taught by Ogata that resin A and resin B may present in the adhesive rein composition in a mass ratio of 1:0.01 to 0.01:1 ([0047]).
It would have been obvious for some of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative amounts of the SEBS and butyl rubber components taught by Takamura in accordance with the mass ratios disclosed by Ogata. Both references disclose adhesive compositions for secondary battery applications and Ogata expressly teaches that an adhesive composition may include an isoprene-isobutylene copolymer and SEBS at a mass ratio that encompasses the claimed range. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Takamura and Ogata would have resulted in the predictable outcome of Takamura’s adhesive layer composition having a SEBS to butyl rubber ratio consistent with the one claimed [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al (US 2015/0037639 A1) in view of Zhong et al (CN 109988522 A), Maeda et al (US 2017/0346130 A1), and Chen (CN 114262574 A) cited through US equivalent (US 2023/0193084 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Takamura in view of Zhong and Chen discloses the electronic apparatus as discussed above in claim 12.
Takamura does not, however, expressly disclose that the secondary battery has a housing, wherein the adhesive tape is disposed between the electrode assembly and the housing with the adhesive layer being adhered to an outer surface of the electrode assembly.
Maeda, drawn to battery art (abstract), discloses a double-sided tape corresponding to the claimed adhesive member ([0001]). Maeda further discloses that the double-sided tape comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer on a surface of a substrate ([0011]). Maeda even further discloses that the double-sided tape is used between a pouch-type outer casing and an electrode constituent body ([0010]). It is additionally disclosed by Maeda that the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer corresponding to the claimed first adhesive layer is adhered to an outer surface of the electrode constituent body ([0013] and [0119]). Maeda teaches that utilization of the double-sided tape in this manner prevents unwinding of the electrode constituent body when impacted by an external force ([0010]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have taken the adhesive tape disclosed by Takamura and utilized it between the electrode assembly and the housing of a secondary battery with the adhesive layer adhered to an outer surface of the electrode assembly as taught by Maeda. Both Takamura and Maeda teach the use of adhesive members in a secondary battery and Maeda provides the motivation for incorporating the placement of that adhesive member between an electrode assembly and the housing of a secondary battery. Accordingly, the combination of Takamura and Maeda would have resulted in the predictable result of a secondary battery with an electrode assembly less prone to unwinding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.T.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights