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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to applicant’s remarks filed 01/28/26.
The applicant argues that the amendments overcome the previous rejection. Further, it is submitted that the amendments are non-obvious in view of the established unexpected results.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited reference relied upon for teaching the claimed solubility range, Oshima, teaches a range of values from 60 – 95%. This overlaps the amended range of 80 – 98%.
Regarding the submission of unexpected results, the applicant has not successfully established a case of criticality and unexpected results. First, the claim is not commensurate in scope with the asserted results. The improvement in resistance according to Table 1 does not appear to be solely dependent on the claimed solubility range. This can be seen in examples 1, 2, and comparative examples 1 and 3 wherein solubility is held constant but particle size, pH, and binder materials are changed resulting in different resistance values. This is also consistent with the specification’s assertion that higher resistance values occur when the particle size of the binder is reduced, gel content is reduced, and air permeability is increased [0141]. The breadth of the claim is open to various combinations of materials for the substrate, coating, binder and particle size wherein even if the solubility limitation were met the evidence does not support a showing of criticality of each combination for which the breadth of the claim is open. Even if the results were considered to be critical and unexpected for the specific materials in the above example(s), the claim is not sufficiently commensurate in scope with the example(s) relied on as such evidence.
If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). More so, in the instance of unexpected results, “[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.” Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). If the applicant intends to pursue the assertion of unexpected results further then the above unaddressed variables need to be explained and made commensurate in scope with the claim.
However, it is maintained that Oshima teaches the claimed range which corresponds to the relationship between the solubility (60 – 95%)[0127] and the resistance values (binder composition resulting in improved resistance values)[0021].
Separately, while not pertinent to the current arguments, Oshima also teaches that the binder particles sizes are known to impact resistance values [0125].
Then, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1.
Regarding claim 1, Toyoda teaches a separator [0006] comprising:
a separator substrate [0025]; and
a coating layer (functional layer)[0025] on at least one surface of the separator substrate [0023],
wherein the coating layer comprises a variable binder (binder)[0027],
wherein a particle size of the variable binder changes depending on pH of the variable binder [0028].
Toyoda does not teach wherein a solubility of the variable binder is in a range of greater than 80% to less than 98%.
Oshima teaches a secondary battery comprising a coating layer [0001] comprising a binder wherein the solubility of the binder is greater than 80 to less than 98% (gel content 60% - 95%)[0127] wherein the solubility of the binder is selected to optimize between cycle characteristics and binding strength [0127]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Oshima teaches that there exists a known relationship between binder solubility (gel content) and an internal resistance value of the battery [0021][0028][0127][0136]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the binder solubility of Oshima into the binder of Toyoda to create a binder with minimal internal resistance while maintaining binding strength.
Regarding claim 2, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein a particle size of the variable binder is reduced as pH is lowered (swelling increases at higher pH)[0026].
Regarding claim 3, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1,.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein the variable binder is an aqueous binder (aqueous medium)[0026].
Regarding claim 4, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein the variable binder comprises an ester group (—COO)(particulate polymer of binder having ester groups)[0056].
Regarding claim 5, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein the variable binder is an aqueous binder (aqueous medium)[0026] and comprises an ester group (particulate polymer of binder having ester groups)[0056].
Regarding claim 7, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein the separator substrate is a polyolefin substrate [0085].
Regarding claim 8, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein the coating layer comprises an inorganic material [0069][0070].
Regarding claim 9, combined Toyoda teaches a method of manufacturing the separator according to claim 1.
Further, Toyoda teaches comprising: S1) mixing a variable binder with an inorganic material to form a coating layer slurry; and S2) applying the coating layer slurry to at least one surface of a separator substrate to form a coating layer [0094].
Regarding claim 10, combined Toyoda teaches the method according to claim 9.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein, in step S1, the coating layer slurry has a pH of 7 or more [0013]
Regarding claim 11, combined Toyoda teaches the method according to claim 9.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein, in step S1, the coating layer slurry further comprises a solvent having a pH of 7 or more [0013].
Regarding claim 12, combined Toyoda teaches the method according to claim 9.
Further, Toyoda teaches wherein, in step S1, the variable binder has a particle size of 200 nm or more [0037].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito, US20200335791A1.
Regarding claim 6, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Toyoda does not teach wherein the variable binder has a degree of crosslinking of 80 mol % to 98 mol %.
Saito teaches a variable binder for use in a secondary battery [0011][0068].
Saito does not teach wherein the variable binder has a degree of crosslinking of 80 mol % to 98 mol %.
However, Saito teaches that the degree of crosslinking of the variable binder controls the binding strength and the size variability (swelling) of the binder [0053][0070]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the teaching for degree of crosslinking from Saito into the variable binder of Toyoda to arrive at the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization in order to control the binding strength and size of the binder as taught by Saito.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1 as applied to claim 9 above, as evidenced by Guo, US20190148735A1.
Regarding claim 13, combined Toyoda teaches the method according to claim 9,
Further, Toyoda teaches further comprising S3) allowing the variable binder of the coating layer to react with hydrogen ions generated by reaction of an electrolytic solution (inherent property of the binder based upon substantially identical structure of the claimed binder and the binder of Toyoda)[MPEP 2112.01 I], wherein the particle size of the variable binder is reduced (binder swells when pH lowers and reacting with hydrogen raises the pH)[0031]
Further, Guo teaches a secondary battery comprising a separator comprising a polymer material wherein the polymer containing ester functional groups is included for its ability to react to hydrogen ions generated from a reaction of an electrolyte solution [0021][0022]. Then, the binder of Toyoda inherently possesses the claimed reactivity to hydrogen as evidenced by Guo thereby necessitating the occurrence of S3 in the method of Toyoda.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US20180166743A1.
Regarding claim 14, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Toyoda does not teach wherein the variable binder has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of 300,000 to 400,000.
Lee teaches a separator for a secondary battery [0001] comprising a binder polymer (protective layer comprising copolymer)[0055] wherein the binder has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of 300,000 to 400,000 (10,000 – 500,000)[0108] wherein the binder exhibits improved mechanical properties within the range of molecular weights [0108]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molecular weight of Lee into the binder of Toyoda to improve mechanical properties.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goetzen, US20150030933A1,
Regarding claim 15, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Toyoda does not teach wherein the variable binder comprises methyl methacrylate butadiene styrene copolymer.
Goetzen teaches a separator for a secondary battery comprising a binder [0001] wherein the binder comprises methyl methacrylate butadiene styrene copolymer (methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene)[0046] wherein when the binder comprises the copolymer (middle block copolymer) the binder achieves good mechanical properties [0047], Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the copolymer of Lee into the binder of Toyoda to improve the mechanical properties of the binder.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda, US20170309916A1 and Oshima, US20220336815A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goetzen, US20150030933A1, and Lee, US20180166743A1.
Regarding claim 16, combined Toyoda teaches the separator according to claim 1.
Toyoda does not teach wherein the variable binder has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of 300,000 to 400,000, and wherein the variable binder comprises methyl methacrylate butadiene styrene copolymer.
Goetzen teaches a separator for a secondary battery comprising a binder [0001] wherein the variable binder comprises methyl methacrylate butadiene styrene copolymer (methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene)[0046] wherein when the binder comprises the copolymer (middle block copolymer) the binder achieves good mechanical properties [0047], Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the copolymer of Lee into the binder of Toyoda to improve the mechanical properties of the binder.
Lee teaches a separator for a secondary battery [0001] comprising a binder polymer (protective layer comprising copolymer)[0055] wherein the variable binder has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of 300,000 to 400,000 (10,000 – 500,000)[0108] wherein the binder exhibits improved mechanical properties within the range of molecular weights [0108]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molecular weight of Lee into the binder of Toyoda to improve mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights