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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an electronic component device comprising a support, an element disposed on the support, a resin material disposed around the element, and a metal film disposed around the resin material” (claims 7 and 8) and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadowaki et al. (JP 2000-357494 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kadowaki et al. discloses a method of evaluating a resin material (Espacenet Machine Translation, ¶ [0029]), the method comprising: preparing a test piece (test specimen) comprising a resin material (polypropylene film) and a metal film (metal foil) disposed at a surface of the resin material (metal foil is disposed at a surface of polypropylene film); subjecting the test piece to pretreatment (1) and pretreatment (2), in order, wherein pretreatment (1) is maintaining the test piece in an environment of from 60° C. to 100° C. and a relative humidity of from 60% to 100% for at least 15 hours (the test specimen is maintained at a temperature of 85 °C and 90% relative humidity for 7 days; ¶ [0030]), and pretreatment (2) is heating the test piece under a condition with a maximum temperature of at least 200° C (as pretreatment 2 does not require a minimum temperature, exposing the test specimen to room temperature is heating the test specimen under a condition with a maximum temperature of at least 200 °C); and conducting a peeling test for the metal film of the test piece after the pretreatments (after pretreatment, a peel strength test is performed on the test specimen; ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Kadowaki et al. discloses wherein the resin material is a sealant for an electronic component device (heat-sealing layer 9 for a secondary battery is polypropylene film; ¶¶ [0007, 0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Kadowaki et al. discloses a method of producing a resin material (polypropylene film and metal foil; ¶ [0019]), the method comprising selecting a raw material based on information obtained from the method of evaluating a resin material (peel tests are performed on various combinations of metal foil and film layers to determine which materials are less likely to peel off in different battery environments; ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Kadowaki et al. discloses a method of producing an electronic component device (lithium-ion secondary battery; ¶ [0001]), the electronic component device comprising a support (4; fig. 1), an element (2, 3) disposed on the support (4; ¶ [0002]), a resin material (9) disposed around the element (polypropylene film 9 is disposed around collector 2 and electrode 3 of the secondary battery; ¶¶ [0002-0003]), and a metal film (8) disposed around the resin material (metal foil 8 is disposed around polypropylene film 9; ¶ [0010]),
and the method comprising selecting the resin material based on information obtained from the method of evaluating a resin material (peel tests are performed on various combinations of metal foil and film layers to determine which materials are less likely to peel off in different battery environments; ¶ [0032]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kizawa (JP H09-193288 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kizawa discloses a method of evaluating a resin material (Espacenet Machine Translation, ¶ [0004]), the method comprising: preparing a test piece comprising a resin material (epoxy resin primer and resin-based paint; ¶ [0012]) and a metal film (steel sheet; ¶ [0012]) disposed at a surface of the resin material (steel sheet 1 is disposed at a surface of epoxy resin primer 6 and resin-based paint layer 11; fig. 1); subjecting the test piece to pretreatment (1) and pretreatment (2), in order, wherein pretreatment (1) is maintaining the test piece in an environment of from 60° C. to 100° C. and a relative humidity of from 60% to 100% for at least 15 hours (a test piece is maintained at a temperature of 80 °C and 90% humidity for 168 hours; ¶ [0015]), and pretreatment (2) is heating the test piece under a condition with a maximum temperature of at least 200° C (as pretreatment 2 does not require a minimum temperature, exposing the test specimen to room temperature is heating the test specimen under a condition with a maximum temperature of at least 200 °C); and conducting a peeling test for the metal film of the test piece after the pretreatments (after pretreatment, an Eriksen grid tape peel test is performed on the test piece; ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Kizawa discloses wherein the peeling test is a crosscut test (the peel test is a grid tape peel test; ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Kizawa discloses wherein the resin material comprises an epoxy resin (primer 6 is an epoxy resin; ¶ [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Kizawa discloses a resin material (epoxy resin primer and resin-based paint; ¶ [0012]), from which a metal film (steel sheet 1) is not peeled off when a peeling test is conducted by a crosscut test in the method of evaluating a resin material (the test piece of epoxy resin primer, resin-based paint, and steel sheet is tested in an Eriksen grid tape peel test; ¶ [0016]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki et al. (JP 2000-357494 A) in view of Kizawa (JP H09-193288 A).
Regarding claim 7, Kadowaki et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and Kadowaki et al. further discloses an electronic component device (lithium-ion secondary battery; ¶ [0001]), comprising a support (4; fig. 1), an element (2, 3) disposed on the support (4; ¶ [0002]), a resin material (9) disposed around the element (polypropylene film 9 is disposed around collector 2 and electrode 3 of the secondary battery; ¶¶ [0002-0003]), and a metal film (8) disposed around the resin material (metal foil 8 is disposed around polypropylene film 9; ¶ [0010]).
Kadowaki et al. is silent on performing a cross-cut test.
However, cross-cut tests are well known in the art of testing adhesion of materials. Kizawa teaches wherein a resin material is a resin material from which a metal film (steel sheet) is not peeled off when a peeling test is conducted by a crosscut test (Eriksen grid tape peel test; ¶ [0016]) in the method of evaluating a resin material (the test piece of epoxy resin primer, resin-based paint, and steel sheet is tested in an Eriksen grid tape peel test; ¶ [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Kadowaki et al. with the cross-cut grid test of Kizawa to more accurately determine peeling resistance by performing various peel tests.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights