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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application filed 18/689,147 by Jeong Eon Park, Roun Kim, and Wook Hee Jang.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “when the tape for an electrode is attached to a metal foil, air bubbles formed between eh metal foil and the adhesive part of the tape occupy an area less than 1% of a total area of the tape”. The phrase “when the tape … is attached” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear if the metal foil is a required element. This therefore renders the claim indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by KAWABE (US 2018/0316045 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 4. KAWABE teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive tape used for fixing an electrode (paragraph 0005). The pressure sensitive adhesive tape includes a first base material, and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer formed in a peelable manner on the first base material, and which the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is formed by patterning (paragraph 0006). The pressure sensitive adhesive layer is formed by patterning (paragraph 0028) and is taken to be the claimed intaglio region. As seen in Figures 1 and 3 the pattern shape covers the base material, the pattern shape may be dot shape, strip shape, grid shape, or hairline shape (paragraph 0028).
With respect to claim 5. KAWABE teaches in one embodiment the interval between dots is 2 mm (paragraph 0084).
With respect to claim 8. KAWABE teaches the thickness of the intaglio region is 100% of a thickness of the adhesive part (see Figures 1a-1b).
With respect to claim 9. KAWABE teaches the first base material may be a plastic based base material such as a resin film (paragraph 0065) the plastic based base material then may be a polyimide or polyolefin (paragraph 0068).
With respect to claim 10. KAWABE teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive may include a base polymer such as an acrylic resin (paragraph 0045).
With respect to claim 11. KAWABE teaches the pressure-sensitive tape can be used for fixed an electrode and a separator (abstract). KAWABE does not explicitly teach “when the tape for an electrode is attached to a metal foil, air bubbles formed between eh metal foil and the adhesive part of the tape occupy an area less than 1% of a total area of the tape”. However, this limitation is taken to be a statement of intended use and is not being given patentable weight. Specifically the claim does not claim that it is connected to an electrode, only that when it is attached it has this function. Therefore the amount of air bubbles is taken to be an effect of how it is applied.
With respect to claim 12. KAWABE teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive can be used for fixing an electrode and a separator at the time of the production of a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery includes a positive electrode, negative electrode, and a separator (paragraph 0002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWABE (US 2018/0316045 A1) in view of KIM (US 2014/0106207 A1).
Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of KAWABE. KAWABE does not explicitly teach wherein the intaglio region is a region having a smaller thickness than a thickness of the adhesive part, such that the adhesive layer is recessed in the adhesive part.
KIM teaches a swelling tape for an electrode assembly and a secondary battery (abstract). The swelling tape includes an adhesive layer 12 formed on a surface of a substrate layer 11 (paragraph 0057). There is included a adhesive region 12A and a non-adhesive region 12B (paragraph 0057). As seen in Figure 2 this includes a recessed area in the surface of the adhesive part 12.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the recessed adhesive layer of KIM for the adhesive tape of KAWABE as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWABE (US 2018/0316045 A1).
Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of KAWABE, and claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6. KAWABE teaches Figure 1a-1b which includes relief regions, but does not explicitly teach an average width of the relief region. KAWABE teaches the pattern formed in a dot shape may have an interval between the dos being 0.1-100 mm (paragraph 0028). In examples the ratio of the total area of the adhesive layer to the area of the base material is 25% with an interval being 30 mm (paragraph 0076), ratio of 50% with an interval of 5 mm (paragraph 0078), ratio of 50% with an interval of 50 mm (paragraph 0081), a ratio of 60% and an interval of 2 mm (paragraph 0084), a ratio of 70% and an interval of 100 mm (paragraph 0086), a ratio of 40%, and an interval of 20 mm (paragraph 0088), a ratio of 10%, and an interval of 10 mm (paragraph 0090), a ratio of 30% and an interval of 5 mm (paragraph 0095). Therefore having the average width be between 1-4 mm would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed as this would be a matter of routine experimentation, as KAWABE teaches adjusting the size of the adhesive versus the interval, and therefore finding the workable range would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed. Similarly it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of the average width of the intaglio region to the width of the relief region may be adjusted as a matter of routine experimentation as noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
