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 § 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) 1-8 & 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao (US20160043361) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on August 4th, 2025).
Regarding Claim 1 & 14, Bao discloses an electronic device, comprising an electrochemical device ([0028]), comprising: an electrode assembly (cell-1, [0028]), a shell (package-2, [0028]), and an adhesive layer (binding material-3 and adhesive paper-4 acts as adhesive layer, [0028]), wherein the adhesive layer is disposed between the electrode assembly and the shell to fasten the electrode assembly and the shell ([0028]); the adhesive layer comprises a flexible layer and a sticky layer, the sticky layer is disposed on an outer surface of the electrode assembly, the flexible layer is disposed on one side of the sticky layer, the one side of the sticky layer is orientated away from the electrode assembly (adhesive paper-4 acts as sticky layer, [0035], binding material-3 comprises a as flexible layer, [0028], flexible layer can further contain a covering layer-4, [0049]).
Bao discloses several drop tests conducted on a lithium battery using the adhesive layer disclosed above ([0250). Bao discloses measured voltage drop differences in each of the disclosed examples is limited or nonexistent after the drop test and discloses that the battery tab structure was not rarely broken (Table 2, [0250]). Bao does not directly disclose wherein an impact-induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is 10% to 40%.
The examiner notes that the property of the impact induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is directly related to the materials used in the adhesive layer. The examiner further notes that Bao’s disclosure explicitly optimizes the strength of their adhesive layer in order achieve higher success rates in their drop test results.
The examiner notes that Bao discloses wherein the sticky layer layer can be formed of polypropylene ([0035]), which is the same material as the instant specification for the sticky layer. The examiner further notes that Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can be formed of polypropylene and thermoplastic polyurethane and polyisoprene and polystyrene copolymer blocks, ([0042]), which is the same as the instant specifications for the flexible material. The examiner further notes that Bao disclose the use of inorganic fillers such as aluminum oxide ([0043]), which is the same as the instant specifications.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein an impact-induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is 10% to 40%.
Regarding Claim 2 & 15, Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Bao does not directly disclose wherein an impact-induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is 15% to 30%.
The examiner notes that the property of the impact induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is directly related to the materials used in the adhesive layer. The examiner further notes that Bao’s disclosure explicitly optimizes the strength of their adhesive layer in order achieve higher success rates in their drop test results.
The examiner notes that Bao discloses wherein the sticky layer can be formed of polypropylene ([0035]), which is the same material as the instant specification for the sticky layer. The examiner further notes that Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can be formed of polypropylene and thermoplastic polyurethane and polyisoprene and polystyrene copolymer blocks, ([0042]), which is the same as the instant specifications for the flexible material. The examiner further notes that Bao disclose the use of inorganic fillers such as aluminum oxide ([0043]), which is the same as the instant specifications.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein an impact-induced thickness change rate of the adhesive layer is 15% to 30%.
Regarding Claim 3, 4, 16 & 17 Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above. Bao does not directly disclose wherein a thickness recovery rate of the adhesive layer rested for 1 hour after impact is 2% to 30% or 10% to 30%.
The examiner notes that the property of a thickness recovery rate of the adhesive layer rested for 1 hour after impact is directly related to the materials used in the adhesive layer. The examiner further notes that Bao’s disclosure explicitly optimizes the strength of their adhesive layer in order achieve higher success rates in their drop test results.
The examiner notes that Bao discloses wherein the sticky layer can be formed of polypropylene ([0035]), which is the same material as the instant specification for the sticky layer. The examiner further notes that Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can be formed of polypropylene and thermoplastic polyurethane and polyisoprene and polystyrene copolymer blocks, ([0042]), which is the same as the instant specifications for the flexible material. The examiner further notes that Bao disclose the use of inorganic fillers such as aluminum oxide ([0043]), which is the same as the instant specifications.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein a thickness recovery rate of the adhesive layer rested for 1 hour after impact is 2% to 30% or 10% to 30%.
Regarding Claim 5, 6, 18 & 19, Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above. Bao does not directly disclose wherein a break-elongation rate of the flexible layer is 80% to 800% or 300% to 620%.
The examiner notes that the property of a break-elongation rate of the flexible layer is directly related to the materials used in the adhesive layer. The examiner further notes that Bao’s disclosure explicitly optimizes the strength of their adhesive layer in order achieve higher success rates in their drop test results.
The examiner notes that Bao discloses wherein the sticky layer can be formed of polypropylene ([0035]), which is the same material as the instant specification for the sticky layer. The examiner further notes that Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can be formed of polypropylene and thermoplastic polyurethane and polyisoprene and polystyrene copolymer blocks, ([0042]), which is the same as the instant specifications for the flexible material. The examiner further notes that Bao disclose the use of inorganic fillers such as aluminum oxide ([0043]), which is the same as the instant specifications.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein a break-elongation rate of the flexible layer is 80% to 800% or 300% to 620%.
Regarding Claim 7, 8 & 20, Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above. Bao does not directly disclose wherein an elastic modulus of the flexible layer is 2 MPa to 100 MPa or 4 MPa to 60 MPa.
The examiner notes that the property of an elastic modulus of the flexible layer is directly related to the materials used in the adhesive layer. The examiner further notes that Bao’s disclosure explicitly optimizes the strength of their adhesive layer in order achieve higher success rates in their drop test results.
The examiner notes that Bao discloses wherein the sticky layer can be formed of polypropylene ([0035]), which is the same material as the instant specification for the sticky layer. The examiner further notes that Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can be formed of polypropylene and thermoplastic polyurethane and polyisoprene and polystyrene copolymer blocks, ([0042]), which is the same as the instant specifications for the flexible material. The examiner further notes that Bao disclose the use of inorganic fillers such as aluminum oxide ([0043]), which is the same as the instant specifications.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein an elastic modulus of the flexible layer is 2 MPa to 100 MPa or 4 MPa to 60 MPa.
Regarding Claim 11, Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Bao does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the flexible layer is 12 um to 42 um, a thickness of the sticky layer is 3 um to 8um, or a dissolution rate of the adhesive layer in a lithium salt free electrolyte solution is 0% to 10%.
The examiner notes that if any of (a), (b), or (c) is satisfied than claim 11 is disclosed by the prior art.
Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer can range from 6um to 80 um (first adhesive layer and second functional layer may be 3um to 40 um, [0037-0038]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 12um to 42 um.
Bao further discloses wherein the sticky layer can range from 3um to 20um ([0036]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 3 um to 8 um.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Bao to have wherein the adhesive layer satisfies at least one of the following conditions (a) to (c): (a) a thickness of the flexible layer is 12 um to 42 um, (b) a thickness of the sticky layer is 3um to 8um, (c) a dissolution rate of the adhesive layer in a lithium salt-free electrolyte solution is 0% to 10%.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao (US20160043361) in view of Maeda (CN108475740A).
Regarding Claim 9, Bao discloses the limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses wherein the flexible layer comprises a sticky material (first adhesive layer can comprises polypropylene, [0042], second functional layer can comprise polypropylene, [0044]), and elastic material (styrene butadiene block polymers, and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer can be used in second functional layer, [0044]) and an inorganic filler ([0043], [0045]). Bao further discloses an example wherein the sticky material and elastic material can be in ratios with each other in a 9:1 ratio ([0065]) and a mass ratio of 9:4 ([0108]) and a mass ratio of 8:2 ([0157]). Bao further discloses wherein the use of the inorganic additive may effectively control the homogenous flow of the first adhesive layer and second functional layer and improving sealing of the binding material ([0052]).
Bao does not directly disclose wherein based on a total mass of the flexible layer, a mass percent of the sticky material is 70% to 95%, a mass percent of the elastic material is 4% to 30%, and a mass percent of the inorganic filler is 1% to 5%.
Maeda discloses a flexible layer for an adhesive structure that include a sticky material, a elastic material (conjugated diene polymer, aromatic vinyl-conjugated diene block polymer and amine-modified aromatic vinyl conjugated diene block polymer in flexible layer, [0018]) and a inorganic filler ([0018]). Maeda further discloses wherein the aromatic vinyl conjugated diene block polymer acting as the sticky material can be present in the flexible layer in 37% mass to 80% mass ([0017]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 70% to 95%. Maeda further discloses wherein the conjugated diene polymer acting as elastic material can be present in the flexible layer in 3% mass to 30% mass ([0017]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 4% to 30% mass. Maeda further discloses wherein inorganic fillers can be added to the flexible layer in 0.1% mass to 10% mass ([0018]). Maeda teaches that this structure provides improved sealing ([004]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Bao with the teachings of Bao to have wherein based on a total mass of the flexible layer, a mass percent of the sticky material is 70% to 95%, a mass percent of the elastic material is 4% to 30%, and a mass percent of the inorganic filler is 1% to 5%. This modification would yield the expected result of improved sealing.
Regarding Claim 10, Bao in view of Maeda discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Bao discloses wherein the sticky material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of poly(1,3-butadiene), cast polypropylene, or polycarbonate (polypropylene can be used, [0044]). Bao further discloses wherein the elastic material comprises one or more of poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), polyurethane elastomer, poly(styrene-b-butadiene-b-styrene), poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene), poly(styrene-b-ethylene-b-propylene-b-styrene), poly(styrene-b-ethylene-b-butylene-b-styrene), polybutadiene, or polyisobutylene (ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer can be used, [0044], styrene copolymer blocks can be used, [0044]). Bao further discloses wherein the inorganic filler comprises one or more of titanium dioxide powder, aluminum oxide, calcium sulfate, and barium sulfate (inorganic filler can be aluminum oxide, [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights