1.

The examination of the present search case has been carried out on the set of 18
claims, the pages 1-39 of the description and sheets 1/6-6/6 of figures originally filed.
2. CLARITY (ARTICLE 84 EPC)
2.1 The wordings of independent product claim 1, method producing the product
claim 12 and method of filling a gap of claim 14 are in breach with the requirements
of clarity of Rule 43(1) and respectively of Article 84 EPC since they do not contain
any single of the technical features (composition of the substrate layer and
respectively composition of the pressure sensitive adhesive, kind of fluid to be
used for deforming the substrate layer, etc...) essential for obtaining the functional
or desired results to be achieved desired referred to (see in particular deforming in a
longitudinal direction when in contact with a fluid and pressure sensitive adhesive)
in the cited wordings of the claims.
2.2 In the same way, neither of the dependent claims contain any single real
technical feature (see compositions of both the substrate layer and PSA , the fluid to
be used in the process for deforming the substrate layer in the wording of all
dependent claims as well as in particular the composition of the non-pressuresensitive adhesive material in the wording of dependent claims 9 and 13) for
obtaining the functional or desired results to be achieved explicitly referred to therein
(see, all claims but in particular, the terms the modification rate of 10% at claim 3;
the peeling strength at room temperature at claim 10 presently on file), rendering
therefore them in breach with the requirements of clarity of Rule 43(2) and Article 84
EPC.
3. NOVELTY (ARTICLE 54 EPC)
The wording of independent claims 1, 12, 14 as well as the wordings of dependent
claim 8 contain unclear technical features (see non-pressure-sensitive adhesive
region) which are hereby interpreted according to the page 18, lines 17-18 of the
application documents originally filed as meaning "a region in which a pressuresensitive adhesive layer is not formed on a substrate layer" consequently a zone
wherein no pressure sensitive adhesive is present" .
Reference is made to the following documents:
D1 US
D2 JP
D3 EP
3.1 D1 (see, in particular paragraph [0007], table 1 and claims 1-22) explicitly
discloses a composition comprising a three dimensional deformable substrate
comprising either any of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) polyester
polymers on one side of which a composition comprising a polyacrylic acid polymer
pressure sensitive adhesive is added. The back of the cited substrate is free of
pressure sensitive adhesive. The thickness of the polymeric substrate range from
0.0005 to 0.005 inches (0.0127 to 0.127 mm) as explicitly disclosed at paragraph
[0009]. The above compositions are used for filling a gap between two elements (see
figures 1,2 and paragraphs [0021]-[0027] namely metallic items 10 and 26; item 10
is surrounded by band 26 (see metallic piece 26 at paragraph [0028)]. The peeling

strength of the compositions disclosed therein range from 2.9 lib/in (see claim 14) up
to really obtained values of 7.1 lbs/in (see table 1-continued, last example).
It is evident that all substrate layers used in D1 are three dimensional deformable in
contact with some particular compositions of fluids as presently requested in the
wording of the claims on file and as it can be seen from the state of the art
documents (see. e.g. D2: paragraph [0075] or even D3: paragraphs [0043] and
[0044] and claims 1(ii),2 and 3 ).
The above disclosure of D1 is prejudicial for at least the novelty of the subjectmatter of independent claims 1 and 12 as well as that of dependent claims 2-7, 10
and 11 presently on file, rendering them in breach with the requirements of novelty of
Article 54 EPC.1The wording of dependent claims 8 (stripped pattern or sea island patter of PSA )
9 (adding a mask of non-PSA-material on the PSA) and 13 (printing a non PSA
component on the PSA), as well as independent method claim 14 and dependent
method claim 15 (adding a swelling fluid of unknown nature) and electrode/battery
claims 16-18 differ from the composition of D1 due to the fact that it (D1) does not
explicitly refers to the technical features contained therein.
3.2 D2 (see, in particular paragraph [0012], working example; paragraphs [0027][0033] and paragraphs [0043], [0049]-[0057] and [0064] and claims 1-3; of the
annexed translation of D2) discloses a three dimensional by swelling deformable
polymeric substrate (PVDF or polyester films) of 25 micrometres thickness
containing on one side of it an acrylic resin adhesive which is used as a wrapping
coating layer for an electrode of a secondary battery. In particular, D2 explicitly refers
to the coefficient of cubical expansion of the substrate layers used therein as ranging
from 5% upwards (preferably being at least 10%) in paragraph [0076].
The claimed subject-matter of independent claims 1,12,14 differs from D2 due to the
fact that it (D2) does not explicitly discloses the pressure sensitive adhesive nature
of acrylic resin disclosed therein and meets therefore the requirements of novelty of
Article 54 EPC in view of D2.
see, in particular paragraph [0012], working example; paragraphs [0027]-[0033],
paragraphs [0043], [0049]-[0057] and [0064]; see claims 1-3; see also paragraph
[0076].
3.3 In the same way, the claimed subject-matter differs from the cross-linked
polyacrylate (see paragraph [0044]) coated swelling polymer (PVDF, PBD, and PIP
cited at paragraph [0043]) due to the fact that in D3 it is not explicitly cited that the
cross-linked polyacrylate adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
see in particular paragraphs [0043] and [0044]

3.4 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature in the wording of
independent claims 1, 12 and respectively dependent claims 2-7,10 and 11 the
novelty of the claimed subject-matter thereof cannot be acknowledged in view of D1.
4. INVENTIVE STEP (ARTICLE 56 EPC)
4.1 The analysis of inventive step before the EPO must follow the problem solution
approach of the guidelines (G-VII, 5 and ff.) which requires that the evidence be
provided that a technical problem has effectively been solved in a non-obvious way
as the consequence of a differentiating technical feature present in the wording of all
independent claims.
In particular, the attention of the applicants is drawn to the fact that "Features which
cannot be seen to make any contribution, either independently or in combination with
other features, to the technical character of an invention are not relevant for
assessing inventive step" and respectively to the fact that "A technical problem may
be regarded as being solved only if it is credible that substantially all claimed
embodiments exhibit the technical effects upon which the invention is based" (see GVII,5.2).
4.2 The absence of a differentiating technical feature (see points 3.1 and 3.3 above)
in view of D1 does not allow starting the reasoning according to the problem solution
approach of the guidelines impeaching therefore any argument concerning the
inventive step of the claimed subject-matter concerning the claimed products of
independent claim 1, the process of claim 12 and dependent product claims 2-11
and process claim 13.
4.3 In the same way, for the wording of independent process claim 14, it is
considered that the teachings of D2 constitute the closest prior art since it discloses
all the essential features of the presently claimed subject-matter namely the tridimensional deformation of the polymeric substrate layer in contact with an
electrolyte. The application documents originally filed do not contain any single
comparative examples showing that the presence of a PSA acrylic adhesive
(differentiating technical feature in view of D2) is responsible for the solution of a
posed technical problem in a non-obvious way over the disclosure of D2 taken
alone (using a non-defined acryl adhesive) which could not have been solved
previously. In fact, the skilled person having knowledge of the properties of
adhesives having pressure sensitive adherence (PSA) and respectively non
pressure sensitive adherence (NO-PSA) properties is in a position of using one or
the other in the processes and products of D2 without implying for that any inventive
height, rather an obvious modification of D2 devoid of inventive skill, according to the
problem solution approach of the guidelines G-VII, 5 ff. (January 2012) and Article 56
EPC.
4.4 The application documents originally filed do not contain any single comparative
example that using a combination of pressure sensitive adhesive and deformable
polymeric substrate layer including furthermore any of the only real technical
features presently in the wording of the dependent claims, namely:
- combination of NO-PSA and PSA/different patterns of dependent claims 8,9,13
- using an unknown swelling electrolyte fluid of process claim 14-15
let alone any other real technical feature of the description,

would be of help for solving a technical problem which could not have been
previously solved in a non- obvious way by D2 taken alone.
4.5. The skilled person having knowledge of the quite normal features of a pressure
sensitive adhesive in combination with an polymeric substrate (as from e.g. D1) is in
a position to use this combination as a part of a coating of an electrode explicitly
disclosed in D2 (the terms acrylic resin used therein is in any case the normal
definition for a pressure sensitive adhesive) and respectively D3 (coated acrylic
resins are inevitably pressure sensitive adhesives as explicitly cited at page 20, line
2 to page 21, line 14 of the originally filed documents of the present application)
without implying for that any inventive skill, obviously rather a normal obvious slight
modification of the state of the art.
4.6 Reference is made to the following relevant documents:
D4 EP 1486548
D5 journal of applied polymer science vol 55 (2003) pages 2115-2123
D6 materials science poland vol 23 No 5 (2003)
Each of D4 (see in particular paragraphs [0072] and [0111]), which disclose different
combinations of foams and PSAs and respectively D5 (see in particular page 2119,
"preparation of acrylic resin" and "preparation of the psa") and D5 (see in particular
figure 10; page 1020 and points 2.2 to 2.4) each of which explicitly discloses the
use of different compositions comprising pressure sensitive adhesives, can be used
by the skilled person as obvious modifications of the prior art without implying any
inventive skill (Guidelines G-VII, 5 ff. and Article 56 EPC).
4.7 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature present in the
wording of the only independent product and each process claims on file, which
could be considered responsible for the solution in a non-obvious way of a technical
problem posed in the application documents originally filed (TRULY COMPARATIVE
EXAMPLES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR SHOWING INVENTIVE STEP), in view of D1D2-D3 each taken alone, only auxiliarily in view of their combination with D4-D6, the
inventive step of the claimed subject-matter cannot be acknowledged (Guidelines GVII.5ff and Article 56 EPC).