INGREDIENT FOR SECONDARY CELL SEPARATOR COATING MATERIAL, SECONDARY CELL SEPARATOR COATING MATERIAL, SECONDARY CELL SEPARATOR, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SECONDARY CELL SEPARATOR, AND SECONDARY CELL
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 11/4/2025:
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended; claim 8 has been added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Due to the features, the excellent heat resistance and air permeability are achieved. This is clearly shown also in Table 1 of the subject specification. Production Examples 1 and 5 and Production Comparative Examples 5 and 6 excerpted from Table 1 are shown below. Among Production Examples1 and 5 and Production Comparative Examples 5 and 6, the weight average molecular weights are different while the formulations of the monomers are the same. As shown below, in Production Examples 1 and 5, the weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer is 20000 or more and 90000 or less. As a result, excellent heat resistance and air permeability are achieved. On the other hand, in Production Comparative Example 5, the weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer is 5000, i.e., less than 20000. As a result, excellent heat resistance and air permeability are not achieved. In Production Comparative Example 6, the weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer is 250000, i.e., more than 90000. As a result, excellent heat resistance and air permeability are not achieved.
That is to say, when the water-soluble polymer has a repeating unit derived from methacrylamide and a repeating unit derived from methacrylic acid, and also has a weight average molecular weight of "20000 or more and 90000 or less", excellent heat resistance and air permeability are achieved.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant is comparing the improvement of heat resistance and air permeability between production examples 1 and 5 versus production comparative examples 5 and 6. However, production examples 2 and 4 have molecular weights of 170000 and 190000 respectively and also show appreciable results like production examples 1 and 5. Therefore, unexpected results have not been shown being that appreciable results for heat resistance and air permeability are also seen outside the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (WO 2019/188722 A1 using US 2020/0411870 A1) and further in view of Asai et al. (US 2018/0212218 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, Adachi et al. disclose an ingredient for a secondary cell separator coating material comprising (Paragraph 0050 discloses a separator with a porous membrane and/or an adhesive layer is formed by forming on a separator substrate a porous membrane and/or an adhesive layer as functional layer(s) using a slurry composition prepared using a binder composition.):
a water-soluble polymer having a repeating unit derived from methacrylamide and a repeating unit derived from a carboxy group-containing vinyl monomer without having a repeating unit derived from acrylamide (Paragraph 0065 discloses the binder composition comprises an adhesive polymer containing a water-soluble polymer. Paragraph 0069 discloses the water-soluble polymer can comprise an amide group-containing monomer unit and an acidic group-containing monomer unit. Paragraphs 0070-0078 discloses the acidic group-containing monomer unit can comprise monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acids which overlap with those listed in the present specification. Further, paragraph 0088 discloses the amide group-containing monomer unit can comprise methacrylamide.),
a content ratio of the repeating unit derived from the methacrylamide is 60% by mass or more and 97% by mass or less (Paragraph 0090 discloses the proportion of the amide group-containing monomer unit is preferably 55% by mass or more and preferably 90% by mass or less. Further, Example 13 discloses 68% by mass of methacrylamide.), and
a content ratio of the repeating unit derived from the carboxy group-containing vinyl monomer is 3% by mass or more and 40% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the water-soluble polymer (Paragraph 0086 discloses the proportion of the acidic group-containing monomer is preferably 40% by mass or less based on 100% by mass of the total monomer units. Further, Example 13 discloses 25% by mass of acrylic acid.).
However, Adachi et al. do not disclose a glass transition temperature of the water-soluble polymer is 200°C or more and 280°C or less.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
However, Adachi et al. do not teach wherein the carboxy group-containing vinyl monomer is methacrylic acid; or wherein the weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer is 20000 or more and 90000 or less.
Asai et al. teach a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer for a battery electrode (Abstract). Like Adachi, it comprises methacrylamide at 40 mass % or more and 95 mass% or less (Paragraph 0034). The composition can also comprise a carboxy group-containing vinyl monomer such as methacrylic acid at 1-12% by mass (Paragraphs 0035; 0042). Finally, the molecular weight of the composition is between 10000 and 150000 (Paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Adachi with that of Asai being that elution of the water-soluble polymer into electrolysis solution in a non-aqueous secondary battery can be inhibited, reduction of non-aqueous secondary battery high-temperature cycle characteristics can be prevented, coatability of the composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer can be improved, and functional layer heat resistance can be increased.
Regarding claim 3, Adachi and Asai et al. disclose the secondary cell separator coating material according to claim 2. Further, Adachi et al. teach comprising: an inorganic filler (Paragraphs 0158-0159 disclose inorganic microparticles. Example 19 discloses alumina. Further, paragraph 0004 discloses the presence of a dispersion medium. Example 19 also discloses ammonium polycarboxylate as a dispersing medium.).
Regarding claim 5, Adachi and Asai et al. disclose a method for producing a secondary cell separator comprising: a step of preparing a porous film and a step of coating the secondary cell separator coating material according to claim 2 onto at least one surface of the porous film (Adachi: Example 19 discloses the binder composition being prepared and then applied onto the both sides of a separator substrate to manufacture a separator having a porous membrane layer.).
Regarding claim 6, Adachi and Asai et al. disclose a secondary cell comprising: a positive electrode (Adachi: Paragraphs 0351-0352), a negative electrode (Adachi: Paragraphs 0348-0350), and the secondary cell separator according to claim 4 disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Adachi: Paragraphs 0353-0354).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 November 17th, 2025