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
The amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in this application. The examiner acknowledges the addition of claim 11. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The use of the terms Beckman Coulter on line 13 of page 36, JEOL on line 28 page 36, NOF on line 14 of page 43 and line 33 of page 52, PERBUTYL on line 15 of page 43 and line 33 of page 52, Sumitomo on line 31 of page 44, Denka on line 7 of page 46, Nippon Paper Industries on line 9 of page 47 which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 9 of claim 1 recites the limitation “in plan view.” This should read “in plain view.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun Mi et al. (KR 2016/0118979 A) in view of Tomatsu et al. (US 2015/0045509 A1) and further in view of Hennige et al. (US 2005/0221165 A1). An English translation of Sun Mi et al. was cited in the IDS of 1/18/2024 has been relied upon. Tomatsu et al. was previously cited in the Non-Final rejected filed 9/10/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Sun Mi et al. teaches a laminate for an electrochemical device (see e.g. the lithium secondary battery separator in Para 1 and Fig. 1A) comprising: a functional layer (see e.g. the layer within porous coating layer region 20 and 30 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A) containing heat-resistant fine particles (see e.g. the plurality of inorganic particles 21 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A of which dependent claim 6 of the instant application defines as heat-resistant fine particles. Para. 33 of the instant specification gives examples of the heat-resistant particles may be titania and alumina which Sun Mi et al. teaches may be the inorganic particles in Para. 46-47) and adhesive particles (see e.g. the organic polymer particles 31 that are adhesive in Para. 35); and a substrate (see e.g. the porous polymer substrate 10 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A),
wherein each of the adhesive particles contains an adhesive polymer, the adhesive polymer including an aromatic vinyl monomer unit (see e.g. by the organic polymer particles 31 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A that includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit by the organic polymer particles comprise mixture including N-vinyl pyrrolidinone in Para. 20),
the functional layer includes an adhesion region formed of the adhesive particles (see e.g. the region of organic polymer particles 31 that are adhesive in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A) and a heat-resistant region formed of the heat-resistant fine particles (see e.g. the region of plurality of inorganic particles 21 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A and because claim 6 even defines inorganic particles as heat-resistant), in plain view from a side corresponding to the functional layer (see e.g. as seen in Fig. 1A and 2A of the adhesive region formed by the organic polymer particles 31), and
the adhesive particles have a volume-average particle diameter that is larger than an average stacking direction height of the heat-resistant region (see e.g. as shown in FIG. 1A and Para. 35, the organic polymer particles 31 have a particle diameter larger than the thickness 20 of the porous coating layer may be used to form a separator having an embossed electrode adhesive member).
Sun Mi et al. does teach the organic polymer particles may include of mixture of the listed polymers and may be single particles or may be in the form of secondary particles made up of single particles in Para. 41-42.
Sun Mi et al. fails to teach where each of the adhesive particles also contains a wax that has a melting point lower than 95°C,
a content of the wax in the adhesive particles per 100 parts by mass of the adhesive polymer is 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less,
the wax is at least one selected from the group consisting of candelilla wax, rice bran wax, Japan wax, jojoba oil, animal wax, paraffin wax, microcrystalline wax, petrolatum wax, polybutylene wax, behenyl stearate, pentaerythritol ester, and dipentaerythritol ester.
However, Tomatsu et al. teaches a tackifier resin of pentaerythritol ester of a natural, modified, or hydrogenated rosin, a type of wax, in Para. 52-53 being used in a mixture with polymeric adhesives for excellent adhesion in batteries in Para. 15-16 and Para. 50. Tomatsu et al. teaches modifying the parts by weight of the tackifier resin in Para. 82 and Para. 85-87 and Table 1 and 2 to evaluate and lead to the best adhesion results in Para. 93-97.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive of Sun Mi et al. to include pentaerythritol ester from rosin as an adhesive for a battery, as taught by Tomatsu et al., for the purpose of improving adhesion. Furthermore, 2144.06 I of the MPEP states: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine). It would be reasonably expected that the combination of the wax of Tomatsu et al. and the polymer of Sun Mi et al. into a third composition would result in the wax of Tomatsu et al. coating to some degree the outside of the polymer of Sun Mi et al. considering the properties of wax in a wax-comprising mixture. Additionally, the combination of the first and second compositions in order to a form a third composition would reasonably form a single third composition particle considering Sun Mi et al. describes in detail the size and shape and dispersion of the organic polymer particles 31 that are adhesive in Para. 35 and 39 and that Sun Mi et al. had taught the organic polymer particles may be a mixture of polymers or may be secondary particles made up of multiple single particles in Para. 41-42. Therefore, upon the combination of two compositions known for the same intended purpose to produce a third composition, it would have been obvious for the produced third composition with the same intended purpose of the wax of Tomatsu et al. and the polymer of Sun Mi et al. to be a particle made up of a mixture of each and/or a secondary particle made up of single particles of each, particularly in order to maintain the described parameters of the organic polymer particles 31 including the size and shape as noted in Para. 35 and 39 of Sun Mi et al., so that the third composition with the same purpose of the organic polymer particles 31 still has the results of those parameters, such as optimizing density, adhesivity, and resistance as noted in Para. 35 and 39 of Sun Mi et al..
The prior art discloses the same composition of wax of a pentaerythritol ester and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider that if the composition as recited is met, the property of a melting point lower than 95°C would be inherently met lacking any distinction between the compositions. In addition, this wax is defined in the instant specification in Para. 49-50 of being a specific example of having a melting point of lower than 95°C.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to upon the combined teachings of Sun Mi et al. and Tomatsu et al. modify the parts by weight of the pentaerythritol ester tackifier resin with the adhesive as a whole, as taught by Tomatsu et al. in Para. 85-87 and Tables 1 and 2, to evaluate and lead to the best adhesion results in Para. 93-97. Because of the terminology of “adhesive particles” in the plural form on line 13, it understood to mean the total content of wax compared to the total adhesive polymer of the adhesive polymers, rather than the wax compared to adhesive polymer in each particle.
In addition, as an additional teaching to address the limitation of each of the adhesive particles comprising the adhesive polymer and the wax, Hennige et al. teaches a separator with a shut-down mechanism in the title of shutdown particles with a defined melting point in Para. 34 and 79 that may be made of a mixtures of waxes and polymers so that the particles melt at a specific shutdown point. The use of “material for the shutdown particles” in the singular form in Para. 34 is interpreted to mean that the material itself of each particle may be a mixture rather than the particles are made of a mixture of different material particles. Because of the use of “particle material” in the singular form in Para. 79 to describe the shutdown particles and then the phrasing of “shutdown particles selected from particles of polymers, polymer blends, natural and/or artificial waxes” it is best understood and therefore interpreted that the particles are made up of one consistent material or composition and thus the particle may comprise polymers and waxes rather than individual particles of a polymer and a wax.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when combining the compositions of the resin or wax of Tomatsu et al. with the polymer of Sun Mi et al. for it to form particles each being made up of a material mixture of polymers and waxes, as taught by Hennige et al., so that the particles melt at a specific shutdown points as noted as a safety precaution in Para. 34 of Hennige et al..
Regarding claim 2, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the volume-average particle diameter of the adhesive particles is not less than 1.0 µm and not more than 10.0 µm (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches the organic polymer particles may have a d 50 particle diameter of 0.06 to 5 μm in Para. 39 which overlaps the claimed range (wherein the volume-average particle diameter of the adhesive particles is not less than 1.0 µm and not more than 10.0 µm) in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the adhesive particles relative to the average stacking direction height of the heat-resistant region is not less than 1.1 and not more than 10.0 (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches the particle size (in context of diameter) of about 1.2 to about 10 times that of the inorganic particles in Para. 39).
Regarding claim 4, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive particles have a glass-transition temperature of not lower than 100C and not higher than 900C (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches the adhesive particles having a glass-transition temperature between 40o C to 100o C in Para. 38 which overlaps the claimed range wherein the adhesive particles have a glass-transition temperature of not lower than 100C and not higher than 900C) in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 5, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive polymer further includes a cross-linkable monomer unit (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches the organic polymer particles comprise mixture including polystyrene, a cross-linkable monomer unit in Para. 20).
Regarding claim 6, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the heat-resistant fine particles are inorganic fine particles (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches a plurality of inorganic particles 21 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the wax is at least one selected from the group consisting of behenyl stearate, pentaerythritol ester, and dipentaerythritol ester (see e.g. combination of references in claim 1. Tomatsu et al. teaches a tackifier resin of pentaerythritol ester of a natural, modified, or hydrogenated rosin, a type of wax, in Para. 52-53 for adhesives in batteries in Para. 15 and 50).
Regarding claim 8, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the melting point of the wax is 400C or higher (see e.g. combination of references in claim 1. Tomatsu et al. teaches a tackifier resin of pentaerythritol ester of a natural, modified, or hydrogenated rosin, a type of wax, in Para. 52-53 for adhesives in batteries in Para. 15 and 50. The prior art discloses the same composition of wax of a pentaerythritol ester and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider that if the composition as recited is met, the property of a melting point is 40°C or higher would be expected to be met lacking any distinction between the compositions. In addition, this wax is defined in the instant specification in Para. 49-50 of being a specific example of having a melting point of higher than 40°C.).
Regarding claim 10, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches an electrochemical device comprising an electrode (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches secondary batteries in Para. 1 and 5) and a separator (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches a separator in Para. 1 and 5), wherein at least one of the electrodes and the separator is formed (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches formation of separator in Para. 1 and 5) using the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1 (see e.g. as the combined teachings of Sun Mi et al and Tomatsu et al. have been relied upon to teach this as described above in the rejection of claim 1. See Para. 20-21, 31, 35, and Fig. 1A of Sun Mi et al.. See Para. 15, 16, 50, 52-53, 82, 85-87, 93-97 and Table 1 and 2 of Tomatsu et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive polymer further includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit (see e.g. Sun Mi et al. teaches the organic polymer particles include (2- ((( butoxyamino)carbonyl)oxy)ethyl(meth)acrylate, 2 – (diethylamino) ethyl(meth)acrylate, 2 – (dimethylamino)ethyl(meth)acrylate, 3 – (diethylamino_propyl(meth)acrylate, 3 – (dimethylamino_propyl(meth)acrylate, methyl 2 – acetoamindo(meth)acrylate in Para. 41 which all comprise (meth)acrylic acid ester monomers by the (meth)acrylate).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun Mi et al. (KR 2016/0118979 A) in view of Tomatsu et al. (US 2015/0045509 A1) and Hennige et al. (US 2005/0221165 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A). Hideaki was cited in the non-final rejection 1/31/2025.
Regarding claim 9, Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. teaches the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 1.
Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a volume ratio of content of the heat-resistant fine particles relative to content of the adhesive particles in the functional layer is not less than 55/45 and not more than 95/5.
However, Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) teaches a separator in Para. 12 comprising adhesive particles, by the thermoplastic resin in Para. 11 and because resin is inherently adhesive, and heat-resistant particles, by the heat-resistant microporous layer in Para. 11, in a functional layer by the microporous membrane in Para. 11. Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) further teaches wherein a volume ratio of content of the heat-resistant fine particles relative to content of the adhesive particles in the functional layer is not less than 55/45 and not more than 95/5 by explaining the heat-resistant microporous layer formed on the microporous membrane and containing 70 vol% or more of heat-resistant fine particles out of heat-resistant fines particles and thermoplastic resin in Para. 11. Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) teaches this range is to suppress the thermal shrinkage of the entire separator in Para. 17 and Para. 32. The adhesive particles can contain polymers in Para. 19 and the heat-resistant fine particles are preferably inorganic particles in Para. 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the volume ratio of content of the heat-resistant fine particles relative to content of the adhesive particles in the functional layer of Sun Mi et al. in view of Tomatsu et al. and Hennige et al. to not be less than 55/45 and not more than 95/5 as taught by Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) for the adhesive particles and heat-resistant particles. This would be to suppress the thermal shrinkage of the entire separator as noted by Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) in Para. 17 and 32.
The heat-resistant microporous layer formed on the microporous membrane and containing 70 vol% or more of heat-resistant fine particles out of heat-resistant fines particles and thermoplastic resin of Hideaki (JP 2008/123996 A) overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of the references cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/10/2025 and Hennige et al. (US 2005/0221165 A1) to addresses the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0280274 A1 teaches protruding adhesion layer that may contain waxes. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/10/2025.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723