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 § 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.
Claims 13 and 23 are 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.
Claims 13 and 23 both recite “wherein the binder comprises…” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that Claim 1 was amended to remove the limitation regarding “a binder”. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the binder”, and it is unclear what structure is referenced. As such, Claims 13 and 23 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that that these claims should introduce the limitation of a binder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 16-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR-20160118979-A; see Patent Translate version of English translation mailed 03/20/2024 for citations) in view of Wakizaka et al. (US-20120189898-A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17-18, Jin teaches a separator for a battery comprising:
a substrate (corresponds to porous polymer substrate 10, Fig. 1a); and
a coating layer (corresponds to porous coating layer 20, Fig. 1a) disposed on at least one surface of the substrate [0013],
wherein the coating layer comprises first organic particles (corresponds to organic polymer particles 31, Fig. 1a), second organic particles (corresponds to binder polymer; not shown [0013, 0035]), and inorganic particles (21, Fig. 1a).
Jin discloses that the first organic particles have a particle diameter larger than the coating layer thickness [0035], and larger than the inorganic particles [0018, 0039]. Since the coating layer contains the second organic particles [0035], the first organic particles therefore necessarily have a diameter larger than that of the second organic particles (i.e. since the second organic particles are included in the coating layer and the first organic particles are designed to protrude past the coating layer by a certain height). As such, Jin discloses that an average particle diameter of the first organic particles is larger than an average particle diameter of the second organic particles and an average particle diameter of the inorganic particles.
Jin discloses that the first organic particles protrude from the surface of the coating layer at a height of 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm [0015], which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 0.5 µm.
Jin does not explicitly teach that the first organic particles may be distributed in the coating layer with a surface coverage of about 5% to about 15% of a surface area of the coating layer.
Jin does disclose, however, that the first organic particles may be distributed in the coating layer with a surface coverage of 10% to 60% [0017]. Jin teaches that if the coverage of the first organic particles is less than the lower limit, it is difficult to show an excellent effect as an adhesive member while if the coverage is more than the upper limit, it is disadvantageous in terms of heat resistance [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the coverage of the first organic particles in the coating layer, including a coverage of 10% to 15%, with a reasonable expectation that such a coverage would provide excellent adhesion while retaining heat resistance (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Jin does not explicitly teach that the weight ratio of the first and second organic particles to the inorganic particles is in the coating layer is in a range of about 20:80 to 40:60.
Jin does disclose, however, that the first organic particles may be used in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles [0021, 0043]. This corresponds to a weight ratio of first organic particles to inorganic particles of 10:100 to 100:100 or, written another way, 9:91 to 50:50. Jin teaches that if the content of the first organic particles is less than the lower limit, it is difficult to show an excellent effect as an adhesive member while if the content is more than the upper limit, it is disadvantageous in terms of heat resistance of the separator [0043].
Jin also discloses that the composition ratio of (inorganic particles and first organic particles) : second organic particles may range from about 80:20 to 99:1 [0052]. The second organic particles are used to strengthen cohesion between inorganic particles and improve the durability of the porous coating layer [0051]. By binding the inorganic particles together, a pore is formed between adjacent bound inorganic particles, thus creating porosity in the coating layer [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of the first and second organic particles in relation to the inorganic particles within the coating layer, including a content of 20:80 to 40:60 with a reasonable expectation that such a content would provide excellent adhesion while retaining heat resistance and ensuring durability and porosity of the coating layer (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Jin does not explicitly teach that the average particle diameter of the first organic particles is in a range of about 0.3 µm to about 0.7 µm.
Jin does disclose, however, that the first organic particles have a diameter in the range of 0.06 to 5 µm [0039]. Jin teaches that if the first organic particles are larger than the upper limit, the separator after the coating becomes too thick, causing a problem of increased battery resistance while if the first organic particles are smaller than the lower limit, they do not protrude beyond the surrounding area and cannot function as an adhesive member [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the size of the first organic particles, including an average particle diameter of 0.3 µm to 0.7 µm, with a reasonable expectation that such a size of first organic particles would result in a separator with adhesion while preventing increased battery resistance (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Jin discloses that the first organic particles can be selected from a group including polystyrene [0041].
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected polystyrene as the material of the first organic particles with a reasonable expectation that selecting polystyrene would result in successful first organic particles for use in a battery separator.
Jin discloses Examples 1-4, wherein the second organic particle is taught as having a particle size of 200 nm (Example 1 [0082]; Example 3 [0092-0093]; Example 4 [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the second organic particles to have an average particle diameter of 200 nm, which is within the claimed range of 0.15 µm to 0.35 µm.
Jin discloses that the second organic particles (binder polymer) are used to strengthen cohesion between inorganic particles and improve durability of the porous coating layer [0005, 0051, 0060]. Jin also discloses that the porous coating layer is used in a separator for a lithium secondary battery [0001, 0013]. Jin does not disclose the aspect ratio of the second organic particles.
Wakizaka teaches a porous membrane which can be coated on a separator in a lithium secondary battery [0013-0014, 0024-0025, 0154]. The porous membrane taught by Wakizaka corresponds to the coating layer of Jin. Wakizaka teaches that the coating layer (porous membrane) comprises binder polymer particles [0040] and non-conductive particles [0029-0030]. The non-conductive particles can be inorganic particles [0030]. Wakizaka teaches that the binder particles are used to ensure the binding between the nonconductive particles and an electrode/separator [0081, 0084]. The binder polymer particles of Wakizaka correspond to the second organic particles (binder polymer) of Jin, and the non-conductive particles correspond to the inorganic particles of Jin.
Wakizaka teaches that the polymer particle may be spherical, hetero form or indeterminate form [0084].
Both Jin and Wakizaka are directed towards binder polymer particles used to increase adhesion between inorganic particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the binder polymer particles of Jin (second organic particles) to have a spherical form as taught by Wakizaka with a reasonable expectation that providing the second organic particles as spherical particles would result in a successful coating layer for a separator for a lithium secondary battery.
By forming the second organic particles as spherical particles, the second organic particles have an aspect ratio of about 1:1, which is within the claimed range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:2 required by Claim 1, and is further within the claimed ranges of about 1:0.7 to about 1:1.5 required by Claim 17 and about 1:0.8 to about 1:1.2 required by Claim 18.
Jin does not explicitly teach that the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles is in a range of about 0.2 µm to about 0.4 µm.
Jin does disclose, however, that the inorganic particles have a particle diameter of about 50 to 500 nm (i.e. about 0.05 to 0.5 µm) [0022, 0050]. Jin discloses that if the inorganic particles are larger than the upper limit, the resistance of the battery increases and the air permeability decreases while if the inorganic particles are smaller than the lower limit, the dispersibility is lowered and the first organic particles clump together [0050]. Jin discloses that when the size of the inorganic particles satisfies the above range, the dispersibility is improved, making it easy to control the physical properties of the separator, and the thickness of the porous layer increases which prevent problems with internal short circuits [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles, including selecting the average particle diameter to be 0.2 µm to 0.4 µm, with a reasonable expectation that such an inorganic particle diameter would result in a separator with adequate air permeability while preventing increased battery resistance and low dispersibility (MPEP 2144.05, II). The range rendered obvious by the prior art corresponds to the range recited in Claim 1.
Jin discloses that the inorganic particles can be selected from a group including boehmite, MgO, Al2O3, or TiO2 [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected boehmite, MgO, Al2O3, or TiO2 as the inorganic particle for the coating layer with a reasonable expectation such a selection would result in a successful separator for a battery. Boehmite, MgO, Al2O3, or TiO2 are all within the scope of the claimed inorganic particles.
Although Jin does not explicitly teach “wherein the second organic particles are configured to function as a filler”, Examiner notes that this is an intended use limitation. The second organic particles disclosed by Jin would inherently occupy (i.e. fill) space in the coating layer [Jin: 0035, 0051-0052, 0064-0065] (MPEP 2112.01, I-II), and are therefore understood to be capable of functioning “as a filler” as evidenced by the Cambridge Dictionary, and absent any special definition of “filler” provided in the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Jin does not explicitly teach that the first organic particles have a glass transition temperature “in a range of about 50 °C to about 70 °C”.
Jin does disclose that the first organic particles preferably have a glass transition temperature lower than the temperature of lamination of the electrode assembly [0038]. As an example, Jin teaches that when the lamination process is performed at 100 °C, the first organic particles preferably have a glass transition temperature of 40 °C to 100 °C [0038]. Jin further teaches Examples 1-4 [0081-0095] wherein the lamination is performed at 80 °C [0077, 0111].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected the glass transition temperature of the first organic particles to be 80 °C or less, including a temperature of about 50 °C to about 70 °C, with a reasonable expectation that selecting the glass transition temperature to be in this range would result in successful first organic particles for use in a battery separator (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Jin does not explicitly teach that the weight ratio of the first organic particles to the second organic particles in the coating layer is in a range of about 30:70 to about 60:40.
Jin does disclose that the composition of (inorganic particles and first organic particles) : second organic particles can be from 80:20 to 99:1 [0052]. Jin further teaches that the first organic particles may be used in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles [0021, 0043]. This corresponds to a weight ratio of first organic particles to inorganic particles of 10:100 to 100:100 (i.e. 9:91 to 50:50), indicating that the combination of (inorganic particles and first organic particles) comprises 9-50% of first organic particles.
Therefore, combining this information, the ratio of inorganic particles : first organic particles : second organic particles is calculated to be about 73:7:20 to about 49.5:49.5:1.
Accordingly, the ratio of first organic particles : second organic particles falls within the range of 7:20 (i.e. 26:74) to 49.5:1 (i.e. 98:2).
This range overlaps the range of 30:70 to 60:40 required by Claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such a ratio of first organic particles : second organic particles would result in a successful coating layer (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Furthermore, Jin discloses that if the content of the first organic particles is too low, it is difficult to show an excellent effect as an adhesive member while if the content of the first organic particles is too high, it is disadvantageous in terms of heat resistance of the separator [0043]. Jin teaches that the second organic particles are provided to strengthen cohesion between the inorganic particles and improve durability of the coating layer [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of the first organic particles in relation to the second organic particles, including a ratio of about 30:70 to 60:40 with a reasonable expectation that such a content would provide excellent adhesion while retaining heat resistance and improving durability (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Jin all of the limitations as set forth above. As discussed in Claim 1, Jin renders obvious the use of polystyrene as the first organic particles in coating layer [Jin: 0041]. Some of the polystyrene particles of Jin correspond to the claimed limitation of third organic particles.
Although Jin does not teach the melting point of the third organic particles, polystyrene has a melting point in the range of 80 °C to 130 °C as evidence by the instant specification [instant specification: 0081, 0083].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Jin discloses that other additives commonly used in the art, such as thickeners like carboxymethyl cellulose, may be further included in the coating layer [0054-0055, 0082].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used carboxymethyl cellulose as a thickener in the coating layer of Jin with a reasonable expectation that the addition of such a thickener would result in a successful coating layer for use in a battery separator. Carboxymethyl cellulose reads on “a binder” (see 112(b) rejection, above), as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0084].
Jin further discloses that the coating is prepared by forming a binder polymer solution [0058-0059], and that water can be selected as the solvent [0062]. Therefore, since Jin teaches forming an aqueous binder polymer solution [0058-0059, 0062, 0082] and Jin teaches carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder [0051, 0055, 0082], carboxymethyl cellulose necessarily has solubility in water, as evidenced by Jin. As such, the use of carboxymethyl cellulose as the binder reads on the recited limitation of a binder comprising an aqueous binder provided in an aqueous dispersion solution (corresponds to a slurry formed in a solvent which includes water; [0082]) during formation of the coating layer.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Jin renders obvious the product of Claim 1. Jin teaches Examples 1-5 wherein the coating layer has a thickness of 1.5 µm and the portion where the first organic particles protrude has a thickness of 1.8 µm [0084-0084, 0089, 0092-0093, 0095]. These thicknesses are within the claimed range of about 0.3 µm to about 5.0 µm.
Regarding Claims 19-22, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the inorganic particles can be selected from a group including boehmite, MgO, Al2O3, or TiO2 [Jin: 0046]. Jin does not teach the aspect ratio of the inorganic particles.
Wakizaka teaches a porous membrane which can be coated on a separator in a lithium secondary battery [0013-0014, 0024-0025, 0154]. The porous membrane taught by Wakizaka corresponds to the coating layer of Jin. Wakizaka teaches that the coating layer (porous membrane) comprises binder polymer particles [0040] and non-conductive particles [0029-0030]. The non-conductive particles can be inorganic particles including boehmite, magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide and/or titanium oxide [0030]. The non-conductive particles of Wakizaka correspond to the inorganic particles of Jin.
Wakizaka teaches that the inorganic particles (non-conductive particles) preferably have an aspect ratio of 9 or more and 600 or less [0037]. By selecting inorganic particles with such an aspect ratio, it is possible to form a porous membrane in which the inorganic particles are uniformly oriented and have a high plunging strength in the perpendicular direction [0037]. Wakizaka teaches that the aspect ratio is equal to (long direction)/(width perpendicular to long-direction) [0037]. Therefore, an aspect ratio of 9 corresponds to a ratio of 1:9 and an aspect ratio of 600 corresponds to a ratio of 1:600 as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0075].
Both Jin and Wakizaka are directed towards inorganic particles such as boehmite, magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide and/or titanium oxide which are used in the coating layer for a separator for a lithium secondary battery. Therefore, in seeking to uniformly orient the inorganic particles to have a high strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the inorganic particles of Jin to have an aspect ratio of 1:9 to 1:600 as taught by Wakizaka with a reasonable expectation that providing the inorganic particles with an aspect ratio of 1:9 to 1:600 would result in a successful coating layer for a separator for a lithium secondary battery.
The range of 1:9 to 1:600 rendered obvious in the prior art encompasses the ranges recited in the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the overlapping range, including a range of about 1:10 to about 1:50, with a reasonable expectation that providing inorganic particles with an aspect ratio of about 1:10 to about 1:50 would result in a successful coating layer for a separator for a lithium secondary battery. This range is within the claimed ranges of “about 1:5 to about 1:100” as recited by Claim 19, of “about 1:10 to about 1:100” as recited by Claim 20, of “about 1:5 to about 1:50” as recited by Claim 21, and corresponds to the range of “about 1:10 to about 1:50” as recited by Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Jin discloses that other additives commonly used in the art, such as thickeners, may be further included in the coating layer [0054]. Jin discloses that the thickener can be selected from a group which includes polyvinyl alcohol [0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used polyvinyl alcohol as a thickener in the coating layer of Jin with a reasonable expectation that the addition of such a thickener would result in a successful coating layer for use in a battery separator. Polyvinyl alcohol read on “a binder” (see 112(b) rejection, above) as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0084]. Polyvinyl alcohol is within the claimed list of possible polymers of Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the average particle diameter of the first organic particles is 0.3 µm to 0.7 µm (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Although Jin does not explicitly teach that the “average particle diameter of the first organic particles is about 0.5 µm”, Jin does disclose that if the first organic particles are larger than 5 µm, the separator after the coating becomes too thick, causing a problem of increased battery resistance [0039]. On the other hand, if the first organic particles are smaller than 0.06 µm, they do not protrude beyond the surrounding area and cannot function as an adhesive member [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the diameter of the first organic particles, including selecting the average particle diameter to be about 0.5 µm, with a reasonable expectation that such a size of first organic particles would result in a separator with sufficient adhesion while preventing increased battery resistance (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the second organic particles can have a diameter of 200 nm (Example 1 [0082]; Example 3 [0092-0093]; Example 4 [0095]). Although modified Jin does not explicitly teach that the second organic particles have an average particle diameter of “about 0.25 µm” (which is broadly and reasonably interpreted as allowing for ranges slightly above and slightly below the claimed value), the particle diameter of 200 nm (i.e. 0.2 µm) rendered obvious by the prior art is so close to the claimed diameter of “about 0.25 µm” that, absent showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected second organic particles with an average particle diameter of 0.2 µm to have the same properties as second organic particles with an average particle diameter of about 0.25 µm (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the first organic particles protrude from the surface of coating layer (see rejection of Claim 1 above; [Jin: 0013-0015, 0035]). Jin discloses that the first organic particles act as an adhesive member than strengthens the adhesion between the separator and the electrode [0029, 0035]. Therefore, the first organic particles are broadly and reasonably interpreted as being “configured to function as an adhesion” as evidenced by the instant application [instant specification: 0041, 0050-0051].
Claim(s) 7 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR-20160118979-A; see Patent Translate version of English translation mailed 03/20/2024 for citations) in view of Wakizaka et al. (US-20120189898-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Tanaka et al. (US-20180053963-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Jin discloses that the first organic particles act as an adhesive member that strengthens the adhesion between the separator and the electrode [0029]. Jin does not teach that the first organic particles or the second organic particles have a core-shell structure.
Tanaka teaches a separator for a battery which is designed to have both a protection function and an adhesion function [0010]. Tanaka teaches that the separator comprises a substrate coated with a functional layer (reads on coating layer) [0010]. The functional layer comprises organic particles [0010] (reads on first organic particles), particulate polymer particles [0016] (reads on second organic particles), and inorganic particles [0010]. Tanaka teaches that the organic particles (reads on first organic particles) are preferably core-shell particles [0087].
Advantageously, Tanaka teaches that the use of first organic particles having a core-shell structure makes it possible to provide a functional layer with the desired performance by changing the property of the core polymer, while ensuring battery characteristics and adhesion in electrolysis solution which are attained by the shell made of polymer [0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used core-shell organic particle as taught by Tanaka as the first organic particles in the separator disclosed by modified Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that providing the first organic particles as core-shell particles would result in successful first organic particles capable of ensuring battery characteristic without compromising adhesion in a battery separator.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Jin renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the second organic particles can have a diameter of 200 nm (Example 1 [0082]; Example 3 [0092-0093]; Example 4 [0095]). Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that second organic particles with an average particle diameter of “about 0.25 µm” exhibit different properties than second organic particles with an average particle diameter of 0.2 µm, such an average particle diameter would still be obvious in light of the teachings of Tanaka.
Tanaka teaches a separator for a battery which is designed to have both a protection function and an adhesion function [0010]. The separator comprises a substrate coated with a functional layer (reads on coating layer) [0010]. The functional layer comprises organic particles [0010] (reads on first organic particles), particulate polymer particles [0016] (reads on second organic particles), and inorganic particles [0010].
Tanaka teaches that the particle diameter of the particulate polymer particles (reads on second organic particles) is preferably 0.05 µm to 0.5 µm [0141]. By setting the particle diameter to be greater than 0.05 µm, it is possible to increase dispersibility of the particulate polymer as well as to limit reductions in output characteristics of a secondary battery due to the particulate polymer being so densely packed that it causes a rise in resistance of the functional layer (reads on coating layer) [0141]. By setting the average particle diameter to be 0.5 µm or less, it is possible to increase adhesion and reduce the occurrence of blocking due to the presence of the particulate polymer [0141].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the average particle diameter of the second organic particles, including selecting the second organic particles to have an average particle diameter of about 0.25 µm, with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter would result in a coating layer with sufficient adhesion and improved dispersibility while preventing blocking and reducing the risk of an increase in resistance (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the second organic particles (binder particles) of Jin are used to “strengthen the adhesion” between the inorganic particles and improve durability of the porous coating layer (Remarks, Pg. 6). Applicant submits that claimed second organic particles function as a filler, and therefore the claims are nonobvious over Jin (Remarks, Pgs. 6-7). Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the second organic particles (binder particles) of Jin such that they function as a filler (Remarks, Pg. 7).
Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Although the second organic particles (binder particles) of Jin are taught as strengthening the adhesion between the inorganic particles, Examiner notes that this function is not taught as being mutually exclusive with the function of acting as a filler. Indeed, Examiner notes that the limitation of second organic particles “configured to function as a filler” is an intended use limitation. Since no special definition is provided in the instant specification for a “filler”, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. The Cambridge Dictionary indicates that a “filler” is “a substance that is used to fill small holes and cracks”. The second organic particles (i.e. binder particles) of Jin are mixed with the first organic particles and the inorganic particles [Jin: 0035, 0051-0052, 0064-0065], and therefore the second organic particles inherently fill spaces between the first organic particles and the inorganic particles (MPEP 2112.01, I-II). In other words, it is understood that small holes exist between the first organic particles and the inorganic particles due to differences in shape and size of these particles. Since the second organic particles (binder particles) rendered obvious by Jin have a smaller diameter (i.e. 200 nm) than the first organic particles (i.e. 0.3 µm to 0.7 µm), and are equal to or smaller than the diameter of the inorganic particles (i.e. 0.2 µm to 0.4 µm; see rejection of Claim 1, above), it is understood that the second organic particles have the structure necessary to fill spaces between the first organic particles and the inorganic particles, thereby rendering obvious second organic particles which are capable of functioning as a filler.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/9/2026
Prosecution Insights