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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 6/26/25. Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending, wherein claims 12-15 remain withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al (US 2020/0377690, previously cited) in view of Dimanshteyn et al (US 2007/0045598).
Regarding claim 1, Ootsuki et al teaches a self-extinguishable film (figs 1-2, laminate 20, paragraph [0046], extinguish fire) for a lithium-ion battery (functional limitation, paragraph [0286], [0288], laminate disposed on any surface of the battery cell, battery cell is a secondary cell such as a lithium ion cell), comprising a self-extinguishing layer (fire-resistant resin layer 22) containing a heat-meltable binder (paragraph [0065-0069] for exemplary resins, note that the disclosed resins are “heat-meltable”) and fire extinguishing agent particles (paragraph [0074]-[0078], endothermic agent particles, endothermic agent is rapidly decomposed at the time of ignition and is thereby capable of quickly extinguishing the fire).
Ootsuki et al is quiet to the self-extinguishing layer contains heat-meltable binder particles, which are particles composed of the heat-meltable binder, and a number average particle size of the heat-meltable binder particles is from 0.1µm to 6.0µm.
Dimanshteyn et al teaches a flexible protective coating (title) that can be applied to any number of substrates (paragraph [0039]). Dimanshteyn et al teaches a flexible fire-retardant coating (paragraph [0006]) that comprises an aqueous dispersion of polymeric binder (paragraph [0008]) and an inorganic fire-retardant (paragraph [0008]), resulting in a fire-retardant, fire-resistant, and fire-extinguishing coating (paragraph [0017-0018]), where the fire-retarding and fire-extinguishing benefits are most fully realized when high levels of inorganic fire-retardant are present (paragraph [0027]). Dimanshteyn et al teaches that any polymeric binder may be employed, including thermoplastic polymers (paragraph [0009]) and that the polymeric binder is a water-dispersible polymer, including but not limited to latex binders (paragraph [0019]). The polymeric binder may be provided as an aqueous colloidal dispersion of polymer particles having particle diameters between 0.01 microns and about 10 microns, and polymer particles having average particle diameters between about 0.05 microns and about 1 micron are especially suitable (paragraph [0019]). The polymeric binder imparts flexibility to the above-referenced variant coatings even at very high levels of inorganic fire-retardant (paragraph [0012]), and that the compositions do not crack or check when the substrate is deformed (paragraph [0007]). The advantages of the invention are most fully realized when the substrate is deformable, although the coatings will be equally useful when applied to rigid substrates (paragraph [0039]).
In view of the teachings of Dimanshteyn et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fire resistant composition of Ootsuki et al, such that the thermoplastic resins are in the form of an aqueous dispersion including polymer particles, having an average particle diameter between about 0.05 microns and about 1 micron, as Dimanshteyn et al teaches that the aqueous polymeric binder dispersion with the polymer particles imparts flexibility to the coating even at high levels of inorganic fire-retardant, and that Ootsuki et al teaches that the fire-resistant laminate may be produced by coating a base material with the fire-resistant resin composition (paragraph [0269]) and that the fire-resistant sheet requires some flexibility to allow the laminate to conform to the battery surface (paragraph [0255]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein a number average particle size of the heat-meltable binder particles is from 0.2 µm to 2.5 µm (Dimanshteyn, paragraph [0019], 0.05 microns to 1 micron).
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). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Ootsuki et al teaches wherein the heat-meltable binder is a resin (paragraph [0065-0067]), and the resin has a melt flow rate of from 20 g/10 min to 55 g/10 min (paragraph [0070], preferably more than 20 g/10 min, and less than 35 g/10 min, paragraph [0071]), measured in accordance with JIS K7210-1995 and under conditions of a temperature of 190°C and a load of 21.18 N (Ootsuki et al teaches the measurement standard is the updated JIS K7210-2: 1999 standard at 190°C and 2.16 kg (21.18N), paragraph [0072]).
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). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Ootsuki et al teaches wherein the heat-meltable binder contains polyolefin (paragraph [0066], example resins include polyolefins).
Regarding claim 9, Ootsuki et al teaches further comprising an adhesive layer (paragraph [0276]-[0281], pressure sensitive adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, Ootsuki et al teaches further comprising an adhesive layer arranged on one face side of the self-extinguishing layer (paragraph [00277], adhesive, paragraph [0301]-[0302], laminate adhered to cell via adhesive on the fire-resistant sheet); and a flame-resistant layer arranged on another face side of the self-extinguishing layer (fig 1, note base layer 21 on one side of layer 22, paragraph [00241], base material may be a non-combustible layer, fig 9, paragraph [0301-0302], the base material 12 between two fire-resistant sheets 11 (battery side with adhesive is on the other side)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination is not explicit to, when the self-extinguishable film is viewed in plain view, a number of aggregates of the fire extinguishing agent particles, in which the aggregates have a diameter of 0.5 mm or greater, is 10 or less per square area of 10 cm on a side.
However, the combination does not disclose that aggregates of a diameter of 0.5 mm or greater are formed. Note that applicant’s specification describes that aggregation is suppressed when the fire extinguishing agent particles are dispersed (applicant’s specification, paragraph [0038]). Ootsuki et al discloses that the endothermic agent in the resin is uniformly dispersed (paragraph [0088]).
As the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Thus, the prior art meets the claim limitation, as the number of aggregates of said size may be 0, which is less than 10 per square area of 10 cm on a side.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al as modified by Dimanshteyn et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 2019/0393466).
Regarding claim 5, the combination is quiet to wherein the heat-meltable binder particles have an average degree of circularity of 0.80 or greater.
Lin et al teaches a polymer layer, wherein the polymer layer includes polymer particles that may have a spherical or spheroidal structure (paragraph [0041]). The spherical structure can ensure the uniformity of the polymer layer (paragraph [0041]). The polymer particles have a sphericity of about 0.70 to 1.0, with exemplary embodiments of about 0.87 to about 1.0 (paragraph [0041]), where sphericity can be measured as the degree of closeness between the projected area of the particle and the circle equivalent (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the sphericity of the polymer particles is in a range of 0.87 to about 1.0, as Lin et al teaches that the spherical structure can ensure uniformity of the polymer layer.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al as modified by Dimanshteyn et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zouta (US 2016/0181576).
Regarding claim 8, Ootsuki et al teaches wherein a median particle size of the fire extinguishing agent particles is preferably from 0.8 µm to 10 µm (paragraph [0082], note paragraph [0344], particle size at 50% of distribution used as the average, paragraph [0083], median size), quiet to a number average particle size of the fire extinguishing agent particles is from 0.1 µm to 5.0 µm.
However, Ootsuki et al still recognizes that when the particle size falls within a particular range, the endothermic agent can be uniformly dispersed and dispersion is improved (paragraph [0076], paragraph [0082]), so that mechanical strength is enhanced and fire resistance and fire-extinguishing performance is improved (paragraph [0207]).
Zouta teaches a flame-retardant sheet or film (title) used as a film packaging material for battery packs (abstract), including an inorganic filler with a main aim of further improvement in flame retardancy and/or mechanical strength (paragraph [0135-0136]), and discloses an example where talc is used with a number average particle size of 1.0 to 9.0 µm (paragraph [0138]), where if the number average particle size is less than 1.0 µm, sufficient flame retardancy may not be achieved (paragraph [0138]).
In view of the teachings of Ootsuki et al and Zouta, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number average particle size of the fire extinguishing particles of the combination to be within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 5.0 µm, as Zouta teaches that the inorganic fillers provide flame retardancy and mechanical strength (paragraph [0135-0136]) and that the number average particle size is a result effective variable affecting the flame retardancy (paragraph [0138]), and that Ootsuki teaches a similar size range for the requirements of mechanical strength and fire resistance and fire-extinguishing performance (Ootsuki, paragraph [0207]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6-9 of the Remarks directed to the combination of Koh and Sung, filed 6/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ootsuki et al in view of Dimanshteyn et al.
Note that applicant’s arguments directed to Koh are moot, as Koh is no longer cited in the current rejections.
Regarding Ootsuki as to independent claim 1, applicant argues that Ootsuki is quiet to the heat meltable resin having a number average particle size of the heat-meltable binder particles from 0.1 µm to 6.0 µm. Note that the rejections above now look towards the combination of Ootsuki and Dimanshteyn et al, who teaches an average particle size of polymer particles in an aqueous dispersion for forming a flame retardant coating.
Applicant further argues, with respect to Ootsuki and claims 6 and 8, that the average particle size of the endothermic agent particles is irrelevant to the particle size of the resin, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the number average particle size of the fire extinguishing agent particles with a reasonable expectation of achieving a number average particle size of the heat meltable binder particles from 0.1 to 6.0 µm as recited in claim 1, or from 0.1 to 5.0 µm as recited in claim 8.
It is noted that claim 8 is directed to the fire extinguishing agent particles, and not the heat-meltable binder. Ootsuki teaches an average particle size of the endothermic agent (paragraph [0082]). Dimanshteyn et al was cited for the teachings of an average particle size of the binder particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735