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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/20/2026:
Claim 15-28 and 30-31 are pending in the current application. Claims 22-28 stand withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 29 has been cancelled. Claims 30-31 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “Applicant believes that neither Shirane nor Sakai are directed to separators and their coatings. Rather, Sakai and Shirane are directed to binder compositions, where the polymers are used to bind the electroactive materials for their respective electrodes. Shirane teaches a positive electrode mixture layer containing a positive electrode active material and a binder. Sakai teaches a binder for an electrode, thus also a binder that should be used in conjunction with electroactive materials. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that separators, while capable of permitting ions to flow between electrodes of opposite polarities, are free of electroactive materials as they electrically and physically separate positive electrodes from their negative counterparts. Therefore, the coated separators are electrically insulating whereas the electrodes of Shirane and Sakai are electrically conductive. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use a polymer binder for binding electroactive materials for an electrode, for coating a separator that includes non-electroactive components as claimed” (Remarks Page 3).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Independent claim 15, as written, requires a separator comprising a substrate layer at least partially coated with the claimed copolymer. Shirane discloses a positive electrode including a coating comprising a copolymer (Page 3 of Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025). The positive electrode (1) sits on a surface of a separator (3) made of a micro-porous film (see Shirane Fig. 1, P40, 46; Page 3 of Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025). As seen above and set forth in the Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025, the separator of Shirane includes a substrate (micro-porous film) that is at least partially coated with a copolymer (the positive electrode includes the coating comprising the copolymer of Shirane; the positive electrode sits on a surface of the separator; therefore, the coating on the surface of the positive electrode sits on the surface of the separator where the two meet; therefore, the micro-porous film (substrate) of the separator is partially coated with the coating including the copolymer of Shirane).
Applicant alleges “Further, Applicant maintains that the technical effect of the present claims has nothing to do with the provision of a more efficient process in terms of energy and maintenance of the quality of the product, as taught by Hardie. In fact, Hardie does not teach or suggest anything related to the criticality to the instantly claimed continuous addition of a specific monomer. Hardie does not teach or suggest the continuous addition of a single monomer during the polymerization of Sakai, nor recognize or provide a person of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of how picking any one monomer for continuous addition, doing so would yield a particular property that would be different that from the continuous addition of all monomers to a polymerization process. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected that by performing a continuous addition of the monomer (MA), a particular uniformity that is key to achieving the desired adhesion between a separator and an electrode could be realized. As described in paras. [0056]-[0057] of the published specification: The expressions "continuous feeding", "adding continuously" or "continuously feeding" means that slow, small, incremental additions the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) take place until polymerization has concluded. The polymer (F) thus obtained has a high uniformity of monomer (MA) distribution in the polymer backbone, which advantageously maximizes the effects of the modifying monomer (MA) on both adhesiveness and/or hydrophilic behavior of the resulting copolymer. Hardie, however, does not recognize the features of this expression nor teach or suggestion the continuous addition of any one monomer and its effect. Rather, the teachings of Hardie would have supplied a person of ordinary skill in the art in performing a polymerization, to perform a continuous polymerization process that involves the addition of all three monomers together, if at all. Since Hardie does not recognize the criticality of the continuous addition of any one monomer, nor how the continuous addition may impact the properties of Sakai's polymer or any other polymer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found a teaching or suggestion of modifying Sakai's process by the teachings of Hardie to continuously add only monomer (MA) in the form of an aqueous solution. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found a teaching or suggestion in Hardie, said person would not have reasonably expected to form a polymer with the improved adhesion between the separator and electrode as claimed. Since a motivation to combine requires a reasonable expectation of success, and neither Hardie nor Sakai teach or suggest the continuous addition of the monomer (MA) as claimed, the combination of Shirane, Sakai and Hardie does not read on the present claims.” (Remarks Pages 3-4). Applicant further alleges “Lastly, Applicant has demonstrated in the examples from the specification as filed that despite having the same ingredients as those described in the preparation of polymer F-2, which is made according to the present claims, when all of the acrylic acid monomer is fed at the beginning of the polymerization, the distribution of the monomers is different. As reported in para. [0167], from the T2f, it was concluded that in comparison to the polymer F-2 made according to the invention, the comparative polymer 1 is not random since the T2f is higher than that of F-2. This is typical of heterogenous distribution of the comonomer units in the polymers. The difference between the process methods of forming the polymers is also evidenced in Table 3 of the application. As shown in Table 3, reproduced for the Examiner's convenience below, when polymer F-2 and comparative polymer 1 are compared to a VDF-AA polymer (A-1), the comparative polymer 1 performs poorly, and provides an adhesion peeling force of 4.31 N/m, 37% of the VDF-AA copolymer's adhesion. The inventive polymer F-2 made according to the method as claimed, however, demonstrates an adhesion peeling force of 14.05 N/m, which is a 21% improvement over the VDF-AA copolymer A-1” (Remarks Page 5). Applicant further alleges “In view of the above, Applicant believes that the present application demonstrates that when the process as claimed is used to form a VDF-CTFE-AA copolymer, the recurring units of the monomer (MA) are uniformly distributed throughout the polymer backbone, and as such, have a higher adhesion to substrates and electrodes when compared to copolymers with the same recurring units, yet made by a different process where all monomer (MA) is added at the beginning of the polymerization. See para. [0187] of the published application. However, these differences in adhesion as a result of the monomer (MA) distribution and its continuous addition to the polymerization is not taught nor suggested by the combination of Shirane, Sakai and Hardie. As such, Applicant believes that this further contributes to there being an unreasonable expectation of success in forming a suitable coated separator, which should provide outstanding adhesion. As such, Applicant believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to further modify the teachings of Shirane” (Remarks Pages 5-6).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments focus solely on Hardie’s teaching, rather than taking in the whole of the rejection (as stated in the Advisory Action dated 02/09/2026).
Prior art Sakai (which modified prior art Shirane) teaches a polymer formed by mixing at least VF and CTFE in an autoclave for over an hour, then adding an aqueous solution of mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate over 10 hours (see Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025 Pages 3-4 and Sakai Example 1). Sakai teaches the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate is added over 10 hours, however, Sakai did not teach how the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate was added, whether or not it was added in batches (semi-continuous for example) or added continuously.
Prior art Hardie was only used to teach in how one could add the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate over the 10 hours. Hardie teaches continuous processes have a more efficient use of energy and easier time maintaining a consistent quality (Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025 Page 5 and Hardie Page 2). Therefore, if the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate is already being added to the mixed VF-CTFE over 10 hours, then, given the benefits Hardie provides, to the skilled artisan, it would be obvious to choose a continuous process for the addition of mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (for example, towards Hardie), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Applicant’s only comparative example (Comparative Polymer 1) differs from the claimed process in that all of the acrylic acid was fed at the beginning of the polymerization. Since Applicant’s comparative example uses the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) only at the beginning, it is unclear if adding the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) over time (even in batches over time as possibly in Sakai) would give the same positive results Applicant claims comes from their process.
As set forth in the Final Rejection dated 11/20/2025 and Advisory Action dated 02/09/2026, Shirane in view of Sakai in view of Hardie teach all of the claimed limitations, as written, of independent claim 15 and dependent claim 29 (which have now been amended together in amended independent claim 15). A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination to be successful due to the benefits taught by each of the prior arts above (Sakai teaches their binder composition is prevented from expanding (thus suppressing a decrease in battery performance) and provides sufficient adhesiveness. Hardie teaches continuous processes allow for a more efficient use of energy and greater easiness in maintaining a consistent quality of polymer).
Further search and consideration revealed Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1). Barclay teaches “ We have surprisingly found that such an extended addition or continuous feed of one or more polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, e.g. the polymer will have more uniform distribution of repeat units throughout individual polymer chains and across the molecular weight distribution of the polymer relative to a comparable polymer made by other methods, e.g. a batch synthesis process” (P13).
Therefore, given what Barclay is shown to teach above, Barclay has been added to the previously presented prior art rejection in order to provide another motivation to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would indeed choose to add the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate of modified Shirane in continuously over the 10 hours after the VF and CTFE are mixed for an hour.
Further, the rejections below have been updated to reflect the amendment to claim 15, cancellation of claim 29, and newly added claims 30-31.
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 30 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.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode”.
The claim does not state the amount of adhesion. The claim does not state what the improved adhesion is relative to. The claim states “wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode”, but it is unclear what the improved adhesion is compared to (Is the polymer (F)’s adhesion improved compared to a different polymer composition? Is the polymer (F)’s adhesion improved compared to a different polymerization process? Is the polymer (F)’s adhesion improved compared to the same polymer (F) when attached to two structures of different materials than desired?).
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner will reject the claim to the best of their abilities.
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.
Claims 15-21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Hardie (Hardie’s Knowledge Base: Learn About Polymer Manufacturing Processes) and Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shirane discloses a coated separator for electrochemical devices comprising a substrate layer partially coated with a binder (positive electrode 1 sits on a surface of separator 3 in Fig. 1, P40; the positive electrode 1 includes a binder, P44; the separator can be a micro-porous film, P46; since the positive electrode including the binder ‘covers’ or is a ‘layer upon’ the separator, the binder in the positive electrode can be considered partially coating the micro-porous film of the separator).
Shirane discloses the binder includes a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride, chlorotrifluoroethylene, and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) (“Materials used as the binder can be any selected from…a copolymer may be used such as one made of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of … vinylidene fluoride, chloro-trifluoro ethylene … acrylic acid”, P44).
However, Shirane does not disclosure wherein the vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) is obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor and then continuously feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization, wherein the wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles, and wherein the continuous feeding of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) provides monomer (MA) uniformly distributed in the polymer (F).
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches a binder for an electrode including a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor (the vinylidene fluoride copolymer includes vinylidene fluoride (VF), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), and a third monomer chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (which are considered hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers), P18, 22, 27, 74 and 79; in Example 1, VF and CTFE are mixed in an autoclave for over 1 hour, P91), and then feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization (in Example 1, an aqueous solution of mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate was added over 10 hours, P91), wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles (0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less, P29) and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles (0.2 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less, P29; see also P63).
Sakai teaches “by ensuring that the proportion of the CTFE structural unit is within the abovementioned range, in a binder composition containing this copolymer, the binder composition can be prevented from expanding, and a decrease in battery performance can be suppressed” (P29). Sakai teaches their copolymer provides sufficient adhesiveness (P15, 70, 120).
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 utilized the teaching of Sakai and substituted the binder of Shirane with the binder of Sakai made by the method of Sakai, given Sakai teaches their binder composition is preventing from expanding (thus suppressing a decrease in battery performance), provides sufficient adhesiveness, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While in Example 1 of Sakai the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate is added over 10 hours, there is nothing stating where this is a continuous addition or a batch addition of the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate. Therefore, modified Shirane does not disclose the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is continuously fed to the reactor during copolymerization.
Hardie teaches polymer manufacturing processes can be divided into continuous processes and batch processes (Page 2). Hardie teaches in continuous processes there is a more efficient use of energy and it is easier to maintain a consistent quality (Page 2).
Barclay teaches “ We have surprisingly found that such an extended addition or continuous feed of one or more polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, e.g. the polymer will have more uniform distribution of repeat units throughout individual polymer chains and across the molecular weight distribution of the polymer relative to a comparable polymer made by other methods, e.g. a batch synthesis process” (P13).
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 utilized the teaching of Hardie and Barclay and chosen to continuously feed the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) over the 10 hours after the VDF-CTFE were mixed in the reactor, given Hardie teaches continuous processing provides a more efficient use of energy and makes it easier to maintain a consistent quality, and Barclay teaches a continuous feed of polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity over a comparable polymer made by a method such as a batch process.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the continuous feeding of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) provides monomer (MA) uniformly distributed in the polymer (F)”:
Modified Shirane comprises a coated separator for electrochemical devices comprising a substrate layer at least partially coated with a vinylidene fluoride copolymer obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride (VDF), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate), wherein the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate) is continuously fed to the reactor during copolymerization. Therefore, since the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane is fed to the reactor continuously during copolymerization of the copolymer just as is claimed, it can be believed that the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer would be uniformly distributed in the polymer of modified Shirane also.
Further, as seen by the teaching of Barclay, a continuous feed of polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, therefore, it can further be stated that the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane would be uniformly distributed in the copolymer of modified Shirane.
Regarding claim 16, Shirane discloses wherein the substrate layer comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, polyester, polyacetal, polyamide, polycarbonate, polyimide, polyetheretherketone, polyethersulfone, polyphenyleneoxide, polyphenylenesulfide, polyethylenenaphthalene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethyleneoxide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene, polypropylene, and a mixture thereof (“Separator 3 may consist of … micro-porous film made of polyethylene, polypropylene … polyphenylene sulfide, polyimide, and the like”, P53).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) complies with formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
108
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1, R2 and R3, equal to or different from each other, are independently selected from a hydrogen atom and a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, and ROH is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group and/or at least a carboxylic group (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 18, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) complies formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
111
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1 and R2, equal to or different from each other, are independently selected from a hydrogen atom and a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, R3 is hydrogen, and ROH is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group and/or at least a carboxylic group (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 19, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is selected from the group consisting of:
- hydroxyethylacrylate of formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate of either of formulae:
PNG
media_image4.png
143
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
- acrylic acid of formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
103
134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
- and mixtures thereof
(given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is acrylic acid (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 21, Sakai discloses wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less (P29) and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.2 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less (P29; see also P63).
Therefore, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein polymer (F) comprises recurring units derived from chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles and recurring units derived from the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 % by moles, given modified Shirane includes CTFE in an amount lying within the claimed range and an amount of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in a range overlapping with the claimed range. 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)
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode”.
As stated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear what the polymer (F)’s adhesion is improved from.
However, since the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane is fed to the reactor continuously during copolymerization of the copolymer just as is claimed (see the rejection of claim 15), it can be believed that the polymer (F) would inherently have adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode, and therefore, there would be improved adhesion over there being no adhesion there at all.
Further, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Hardie (Hardie’s Knowledge Base: Learn About Polymer Manufacturing Processes) and Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Totsuka et al (US 20050186479 A1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Shirane does not meet the limitation wherein the coated separator of claim 15 further comprises non-electroactive inorganic filler material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Totsuka teaches an electronic component separator (for batteries) that allows for easy thickness reduction and also has excellent mechanical strength, dimensional stability and heat resistance (P2, 8). Totsuka teaches the separator comprises a porous film made of a synthetic resin and filler grains (P9).
Totsuka teaches the synthetic resin provides heat resistance (P22). Totsuka teaches the synthetic resin can include polyphenylene sulfide (P22).
Totsuka teaches the filler grains can include natural silica, synthetic silica, alumina, titanium oxide, glass and other inorganic grains with electrical insulation property (P26).
Totsuka teaches the porous film must contain filler grains in order to prevent dense layers (skin layers) without pores from being formed with the synthetic resin is converted to a porous structure to form the electronic component separator (P25).
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 utilized the teaching of Totsuka and substituted the micro-porous film substrate of the coated separator of modified Shirane with the porous film of the electronic component separator of Totsuka (for example, substituting the micro-porous film substrate of the coated separator of modified Shirane with a porous film made of polyphenylene sulfide and at least one of natural silica, synthetic silica, alumina, titanium oxide, glass and other inorganic grains with electrical insulation property as described by Totsuka), given Totsuka teaches their separator has excellent mechanical strength, dimensional stability, and heat resistance, Totsuka teaches their synthetic resin provides heat resistance, Totsuka teaches their filler grains provide electrical insulation and pore formation, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729