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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (CN 214244277 U; Henceforth, Liao) in view of Fukushima et al. (US 10084165 B2; Henceforth, Fukushima).
Regarding claim 1, Liao teaches a pouch battery (equivalent to the battery of the instant claim, [n0051]) comprising an electrode assembly and a packaging bag accommodating the electrode assembly ([n0051], where the packaging bag is equivalent to a pouch), and a battery protective film ([n0050], equivalent to a cover tape) that is attached to the pouch such that it partially covers four surfaces of the battery (Figures 1 and 7, reproduced below; with it covering four surfaces, the film thus at least partially covers at least two surfaces of the battery). As shown in Figure 7, annotated below, the battery protective film has a first region (element 23 and 124A) that cover a side surface of the battery (thus being equivalent to a fixing surface) and a second region (element 211) that cover an upper surface of the battery (thus being equivalent to the dot area). Liao teaches region 23 of the first region and the second regions each have adhesive ([n0070] for the first region; [n0053] and [n0057] for the second region), and that the adhesive of element 23 has a stronger adhesive force than the second region ([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057] teaches region 21 includes portion 211). Liao teaches the protection film aids in the removal of the battery assembly from an electronic device battery compartment ([n0073]). Liao does not explicitly teach the pouch battery is a secondary battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Liao.
PNG
media_image2.png
505
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, reproduced from Liao, annotated by the examiner.
Fukushima teaches a battery assembly (page 2, column 4, lines 6-8) consisting of a battery and a protective sheet (page 2, column 4, lines 6-8). Fukushima teaches the battery can be a soft pack battery such as a lithium-ion polymer battery (page 2, column 4, lines 9-11), which the examiner notes is a pouch-type battery, and the lithium-ion polymer battery is an example of a secondary battery. The examiner notes that Fukushima teaches the inclusion of the protective sheet allows for the battery to be removed from a housing (page 2, column 4, lines 16-26), without damaging the battery, since the protection sheet is weakly adhered to the battery (page 3, column 5, lines 53-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Liao by utilizing a secondary battery, as taught by Fukushima. Fukushima demonstrates precedent in the art for using a weakly adhered battery protection sheet to aid the removal of a secondary battery from a housing (page 3, column 5, lines 53-57). A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the pouch battery, taught by Liao, a secondary pouch battery, as taught by Fukushima, would have been successful, as both teach the use of a film to aid in the removal of a battery from a housing. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Regarding claim 2, Liao and Fukushima teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1. Liao teaches the first region covers a side surface of the battery and the second region covers at least part of the upper surface of the battery (Figures 1 and 7, above). The examiner notes the first region is equivalent to the fixing area, and the second region is equivalent to the dot area of the instant claim. Therefore, Liao teaches all the additional limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Liao and Fukushima teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 2. Liao teaches the adhesive on the first region has a stronger adhesive force than the than the second region ([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057] teaches region 21 includes portion 211). This equates to having a fixing area with an adhesive force greater than the adhesive force of the dot area; therefore, Liao teaches the additional limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Liao and Fukushima teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1. Liao teaches the battery protection film has a base area (Figure 7, above; elements 212, and 214-216 combine to form an area that covers a lower surface of the battery). Liao teaches that region 212 has an adhesive force greater than that of regions 211 and 213 ([n0057]), but less than that of region 23 ([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057] teaches region 21 includes portion 211). Therefore, since Liao teaches a base area with an adhesive force, Liao teaches all the additional limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Liao and Fukushima teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 4. Liao teaches the battery protection film has a third region (corresponding to a second fixing area) extending from an opposite side surface of the base area (Figure 7, annotated below, element 126A and 23). The examiner notes Liao teaches region 23 of the second fixing area has a stronger adhesive force than the base portion, constituting a third adhesive force ([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057] teaches region 21 includes portion 211). Liao teaches a fourth region (Figure 1, element 11, corresponding to the third dot region of the instant claim) extending from the side of third region. Liao teaches the adhesive forces of the second region and the fourth regions are preferably the same ([n0058]), corresponding to the second adhesive force. Therefore, Liao teaches all the additional limitations of claim 15.
PNG
media_image3.png
505
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, reproduced from Liao, annotated by the examiner.
Claims 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Fukushima in view of Su et al. (CN 216597776 U; Henceforth, Su) and Hwang et al. (US 20220247025 A1; Henceforth, Hwang).
Regarding claim 5, Liao and Fukushima teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 4. Liao teaches the battery protection film has a second region extending from a side surface of the base region (corresponding to a first dot area; Figure 7, annotated above), and a first region (corresponding to the fixing area; Figure 7, above). Liao teaches these regions have differing adhesive forces ([n0057] and [n0070]). Liao and Fukushima do not teach a second dot area on an edge of a portion of the first dot area and having the first adhesive force and a first fixing area on an edge of the second dot area.
Su teaches a battery wrapping film ([n0005]) comprising different regions. As depicted in Figure 1, annotated below, Su teaches the film has different regions, including a first region, called a second mesh adhesive area ([n0024]; Figure 1, element 24, below), a second region, called a second lifting part ([n0024]; Figure 1, element 23), consisting of a non-adhesive area (element 232) and a strong adhesive area (element 231), and a third region, called a tail adhesive tape ([n0026]; Figure 1, element 4, below), which has a mesh adhesive area (element 41) and a strong adhesive area (element 42). The examiner notes first region corresponds to a first dot region of the instant claim, the second region corresponds to the second dot region of the instant claim, and the third region corresponds to the first fixing region of the instant claim. The examiner also notes the second dot portion is on an edge of the first dot area, and the first fixing area is on an edge of the second dot area (Figure 1, below). Su teaches the first region has a smaller adhesive strength than the strong adhesive area ([n0046], presumed to be element 211 of Figure 1 in view of [n0024]), which facilitates the removal of the first lifting part and second lifting parts (elements 23 and 24, Figure 1, below) upon the removal and disassembly of the battery ([n0018]). Su teaches that the second region utilizes a strong adhesive ([n0047]), which is different than the strength taught for the first region. The examiner notes the mesh region 31 (see Figure 1, below) has a small adhesive strength ([n0050]), but is silent about the adhesive strength of element 41. Su additionally teaches the inclusion of the tail portion to prevent the tail of the battery from directly contacting the battery compartment after wear, thus preventing a short circuit and reducing the risk of short circuit caused by wear between the battery and the battery compartment ([n0018]). Su does not explicitly teach the second region has the same adhesive force as the base portion of the adhesive tape.
PNG
media_image4.png
645
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Su, annotated by the examiner.
Hwang teaches am adhesive member, called a “rework member” ([0115]) to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, reproduced below), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]). The examiner notes the side tape elements (Figure 8, element 622) has the same “weak adhesive strength” designation as the base portion (Figure 8, element 610), and is presumed to have the same adhesive strength, since Hwang teaches the “weak adhesive strength” has a particular strength less than the “strong adhesive strength of the 710 region ([0117]).
PNG
media_image5.png
565
581
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 8, reproduced from Hwang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery protection film taught by Liao by including a second dot region on an edge of a portion of the first dot region, and have the first fixing region on an of the second dot region, as taught by Su in the same field of endeavor, and the second dot region having an adhesive strength equal to that of the base region, as taught by Hwang in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Su, to split the first dot region of Liao to include a first dot region around the handle (Figure 1, element 21) and a second dot region (Figure 1, element 231), in order to facilitate the separation of the lifting parts from the upper surface of the battery ([n0046]) in order to help the handle (Figure 1, element 21) remove the battery while minimizing potential damage to the battery ([n0018]). There would have also been a motivation to position the first fitted portion on the edge of the second dot region, as taught by Su, to prevent the tail of the battery from directly contacting the battery compartment after wear, thus preventing a short circuit and reducing the risk of short circuit caused by wear between the battery and the battery compartment ([n0018]). The examiner notes the orientation taught by Su accomplishes this by ensuring the full side portion is covered, which is accomplished by having the first fitted region on the edge of the second dotted region. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the tail portion of the film taught by Liao for that taught by Su would have helped prevent short circuiting, as it would be performing the same function as it had in the system of Su. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Additionally, Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art for the base portion of the battery protection film to have the same adhesive strength as the side dot regions. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the substitution of the adhesive strength of the second dot region with that of the adhesive of the base material would have yielded predictable results, including enabling the rework of the section, as Hwang demonstrates such a configuration and such a practice ([0115], as indicated by the part being called a rework section). See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Regarding claim 6, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Liao teaches that region 212 (the base region) has an adhesive force greater than that of regions 211 and 213 (equivalent to the first dot region, [n0057]), but less than that of region 23 ([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057], equivalent to the fixing region of claim 4). The examiner notes, with the modifications to Liao taught in claim 5, above, the first dot region taught by Liao is localized around the handle region originally taught by Su, while the second dot area has an first adhesive strength, as taught by Hwang. Therefore, Liao teaches the additional limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Liao teaches wherein the adhesive force of the side covering portion is greater than the first adhesive force of the base region (([n0070] teaches region 23 has stronger adhesive than region 21, and [n0057]). Therefore, Liao teaches all the additional limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Hwang teaches am adhesive member, called a “rework member” ([0115]) to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, reproduced above), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]). Hwang teaches to be considered a “strong adhesive force”, an adhesive force of 100 gf or more is needed ([0116]), and a “weak adhesive force” is below 100 gf ([0117]). The examiner notes the strong adhesive sections have a width of 5 to 7 mm ([0143]). While the examiner notes the length dependence is not taught explicitly by Hwang, it is assumed that the threshold must be met for the entire distance of the strong adhesive section of the battery (i.e., the entire taught width). In this case, 100 gf must be maintained over 5-7 mm. This results in a 100 gf/5 mm value, or 0.5 kgf/25 mm as a upper bound and a 100 gf /7 mm value, or 0.357 kgf/ 25 mm as a lower bound for this threshold. Hwang teaches the base portion (Figure 8, element 610) can have a weak adhesive force (Figure 8, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of claim 5 such that the first adhesive force is 0.20 to 0.50 kgf/25 mm, as taught by Hwang. Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art for a threshold for strong adhesive strength to be 100 gf, applying on a region that is 5 to 7 mm wide. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that utilizing an adhesive strength within the range taught by Hwang (being less than the upper bound of 0.5 kgf/25 mm) would have predictably allow the region to peel more easily to enable a region to be reworked, as it would be below the threshold where a worker would reasonable expect the region to withstand sufficient force ([0116]), matching the teachings of Su ([n0018], [n0024], [n0041]) that the region can be peeled, and, as needed reapplied. The examiner notes the range taught by Hwang overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the first adhesive force from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 9, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Liao teaches the second adhesive force is less than the first adhesive force ([n0057]). Hwang teaches am adhesive member, called a “rework member” ([0115]) to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, reproduced above), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]). Hwang teaches to be considered a “strong adhesive force”, an adhesive force of 100 gf or more is needed ([0116]), and a “weak adhesive force” is below 100 gf ([0117]). The examiner notes the strong adhesive sections have a width of 5 to 7 mm ([0143]). While the examiner notes the length dependence is not taught explicitly by Hwang, it is assumed that the threshold must be met for the entire distance of the strong adhesive section of the battery (i.e., the entire taught width). In this case, 100 gf must be maintained over the 5-7 mm width of the strong adhesive section. This results in a 100gf/5 mm value, or 0.5 kgf/ 25 mm as a upper bound and a 100gf/7 mm value, or 0.357 kgf/ 25 mm, as a lower bound for this threshold. Hwang teaches the base portion and side tapes (Figure 8, element 610 and 622, respectively) can have a weak adhesive force (Figure 8, below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of claim 5 such that the second adhesive force is 0.05 to 0.25 kgf/25 mm, as taught by Hwang. Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art for a threshold for strong adhesive strength to be 100 gf, applying on a region that is 5 to 7 mm wide. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that utilizing an adhesive strength within the range taught by Hwang (being less than the upper threshold bound of 0.5 kgf/25 mm) would have predictably allow the region to peel more easily to enable a region to be reworked, as it would be below the threshold where a worker would reasonable expect the region to withstand sufficient force ([0116]), matching the teachings of Su ([n0018], [n0024], [n0041]) that the region can be peeled, and, as needed reapplied. The examiner notes the range taught by Hwang overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the first adhesive force from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range, and because Liao teaches the second adhesive force should be weaker than the first adhesive force.
Regarding claim 10, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Liao teaches the third adhesive force is stronger than the first or second adhesive forces ([n0057] and [n0070]). Hwang teaches am adhesive member, called a “rework member” ([0115]) to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, reproduced above), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]). Hwang teaches to be considered a “strong adhesive force”, an adhesive force of 100 gf or more is needed ([0116]), and a “weak adhesive force” is below 100 gf ([0117]). The examiner notes the strong adhesive sections have a width of 5 to 7 mm ([0143]). While the examiner notes the length dependence is not taught explicitly by Hwang, it is assumed that the threshold must be met for the entire distance of the strong adhesive section of the battery (i.e., the entire taught width). In this case, 100 gf must be maintained over the 5-7 mm width of the strong adhesive section. This results in a 100 gf/5 mm value, or 0.5 kgf/ 25 mm as a upper bound and a 100 gf/7 mm value, or 0.357 kgf/ 25 mm, as a lower bound for this threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of claim 5 such that the third adhesive force is 1.10 to 1.40 kgf/25 mm, as taught by Hwang. Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art for a threshold for strong adhesive strength to be 100 gf, applying on a region that is 5 to 7 mm wide. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that utilizing an adhesive with a strong adhesive strength within the range taught by Hwang (being greater than the upper threshold bound of 0.5 kgf/25 mm) would have predictably allow the region to withstand sufficient force from workers , as taught by Hwang ([0116]). The examiner notes the range taught by Hwang overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the first adhesive force from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range, and because Liao teaches the third adhesive force should be stronger than the first and second adhesive forces.
Regarding claim 11, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5. Su teaches a fourth region (Figure 1, annotated below, equivalent to a third dot region), called a first lifting part (element 22, Figure 1). Su teaches the first lifting part has a region with no adhesive applied ([n0024]; Figure 1, element 221). The examiner notes the non-adhesive region would be equivalent to the finishing area of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image6.png
654
777
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Su, annotated by the examiner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery protection film of claim 5 by including a lifting portion with no adhesive applied thereto, for the reasons outlined in claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 12, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 11. Su teaches the first lifting portion is on an outermost edge of the third dot area (Figure 1, as annotated in claim 12, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery protection film of claim 5 by including a lifting portion with no adhesive applied thereto, for the reasons outlined in claims 5 and 11, above.
Regarding claim 13, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 11. Hwang teaches am adhesive member to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, above), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]) . Hwang teaches, in Figure 9, regions with a non-adhesive surface have a additional layer of non-adhesive material disposed on a base substrate and an adhesive layer (Figure 9, element 976 in a non-adhesive layer on base substrate 972 and first adhesive layer 974; [0121]-[0122]). Hwang teaches the non-adhesive layers are formed to be different from each other in size and spacing to impact the overall adhesive strength of the local area of the adhesive cover member ([0120]).
PNG
media_image7.png
316
833
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 9, reproduced from Hwang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery protection film of claim 11 such that the finishing area has a thickness different than the thickness of the base material of the cover tape, as taught by Hwang. Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art to utilize non-adhesive regions formed by applying a non-adhesive layer on top of an adhesive layer and base layer of an adhesive member to cover a battery, to modulate the local adhesion of the adhesive member. A person of ordinary skill oin the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the substitution of the non-adhesive composition of Su for that of Hwang would have been predictable, since it would be capable of performing the same function it had been previously been demonstrated to show. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Regarding claim 14, Liao, Fukushima, Su, and Hwang teach the secondary battery as claimed in claim 11. Su teaches the first pulling portion (equivalent to the finishing area) is in contact with the upper surface of the battery ([n0029]; the examiner notes the first pulling portion is part of the first side tape 2, in view of [n0024], which is pasted on the upper surface of the battery). Hwang teaches am adhesive member to cover a portion of a battery ([0008]). Hwang teaches an embodiment (Figure 8, above), where various regions have varying adhesive strength, including NS (non-adhesive surface), WS (a weak adhesive surface) and SS (a strong adhesive surface; [0115]) . Hwang teaches, in Figure 9, above, regions with a non-adhesive surface have an additional layer of non-adhesive material disposed on a base substrate and an adhesive layer (Figure 9, element 976 in a non-adhesive layer on base substrate 972 and first adhesive layer 974; [0121]-[0122]). Hwang teaches the non-adhesive layers are formed to be different from each other in size and spacing to impact the overall adhesive strength of the local area of the adhesive cover member ([0120]). The examiner notes the inclusion of the adhesive layer and the non-adhesive layer to the base layer make this region thicker than just the base portion of the adhesive member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery protection film of claim 11 such that the finishing area thickness than the thickness of the base material of the cover tape, as taught by Hwang. Hwang demonstrates precedent in the art to utilize non-adhesive regions formed by applying a non-adhesive layer on top of an adhesive layer and base layer of an adhesive member to cover a battery, to modulate the local adhesion of the adhesive member. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the substitution of the non-adhesive composition of Su for that of Hwang would have been predictable, since it would be capable of performing the same function it had been previously been demonstrated to show. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhou (CN 206451750 U).
Zhou teaches a double-layer battery disassembly protection film ([0002]). Of particular note, Zhou teaches the portion that covers the entire side-wall of the battery uses a “strong” adhesive portion, while the surfaces covering the top and bottom faces has a “partial” adhesive portion ([0008]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
