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 .
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.
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 1-4, 7-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, et. al. (US 20190305278 A1), in view of Lee, et. al (KR20180003177A), Seo, et. al. (US2017338461A1), and Park, et. al. (US2015155539A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Saeki teaches a separator ([0068] “separator”) comprising: a porous polymer substrate (“[0069] specifically, a microporous membrane . .. such as a polyolefin . . .polyester, polyimide, polyamide, polyurethane, etc. may be used as a separator”); and a porous coating layer (“[0009] an inorganic particle containing layer” ; “[0073] [i]n a case where the separator contains the inorganic particles for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery according to the present embodiment, it is possible not only to form a single layer structure separator by adding the inorganic particles for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery into the above microporous membrane or nonwoven fabric, but also to form a multilayer structure separator using the microporous membrane or the nonwoven fabric as a base material, and placing a porous layer containing the inorganic particles for a battery on either or both sides of the same.”) disposed on at least one surface (covered by “[0073] a porous layer containing the inorganic particles . . . on either or both sides of the [microporous membrane]” of the porous polymer substrate, and wherein the porous coating layer comprises a plurality of inorganic particles (“[0016] the inorganic particles”) and a binder polymer disposed partially or totally on surfaces of the inorganic particles to connect and fix the inorganic particles may be interconnected and fixed (“[0080] the layer containing the inorganic particles for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery preferably contains a binder in order to bind inorganic particles together, or bind the layer containing the inorganic particles for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery with a base material (the nonwoven fabric, or the microporous membrane described above)”), wherein the binder polymer comprises core-shell structured polymer particles having a core portion and a shell portion surrounding the core portion (“[0081] There is no particular restriction on the binder, but, more preferably, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of particles of a non-conductive polymer or a polymer having a core-shell structure”). Saeki at [0009, 16, 68-73, 80-81].
Saeki teaches the binder polymer having a core-shell structure “[0082] include resins which are roughly classified into the following (b1) to (b4),” but while these include a “graft polymer,” Saeki is silent as to “the core portion polymer contained in the core portion and the shell portion polymer contained in the shell portion have a different glass transition temperature, and a polymer containing an ingredient capable of being eluted with an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond is grafted to the surface of the shell.”
Lee teaches “[0005] In one embodiment, a porous substrate and a heat resistant layer located on at least one side of the porous substrate, wherein the heat resistant layer comprises a first binder, a second binder, and a filler, wherein the first binder is a core shell structure[,] [w]herein the core of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of 80 ° C or higher and the shell of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of -10 ° C to 10 ° C, A separation membrane for a secondary battery.” Lee at [0005]. Further, this core of the first binder “[0023] The resin contained in the core of the first binder and the resin contained in the shell of the first binder are not limited to the same kind as long as they satisfy the respective glass transition temperatures . . . [including] an urethane-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof, and examples thereof include polystyrene, a styrene-butadiene copolymer, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer (Meth) acrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene . . . polyvinyl alcohol. . .copolymers thereof, derivatives thereof, or a combination thereof. Wherein alkyl may be, for example, C1 to C30 alkyl, C1 to C15 alkyl, C1 to C10 alkyl, or C1 to C5 alkyl.” Id. at [0023]. This a presents an embodiment comprising a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, with the core of the first binder having a glass transition temperature of 80 ° C or higher and the shell of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of -10 ° C to 10 ° C. Id. at [0005, 23]. This reads upon “wherein a core portion polymer present in the core portion and a shell portion polymer present in the shell portion have a different glass transition temperature.” Lee teaches a benefit, wherein “[0031] The first binder has a low degree of swelling due to the electrolytic solution, thereby effectively suppressing an increase in resistance in the battery.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the battery of Saeki, such that the first binder of Lee is the binder polymer comprising a core portion polymer present in the core portion and a shell portion polymer present in the shell portion have a different glass transition temperature, because Lee teaches a benefit to a reduction in swelling and thereby a suppression of internal resistance. MPEP 2144 (II) (“The expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references.”).
However, Saeki is silent as to a polymer containing an ingredient capable of being eluted with an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond is grafted to the surface of the shell portion.
Seo teaches “[0004] a separator for a rechargeable battery according to an embodiment is described. FIG. 1 illustrates a view showing a separator for a rechargeable battery according to an embodiment. Referring to FIG. 1, a separator 10 for a rechargeable battery according to an embodiment includes a porous substrate 20 and a heat resistance layer 30 disposed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous substrate 20.” Seo at [0004]. Further, “[0044] The acryl-based copolymer may include a unit derived from (meth)acrylate or (meth)acrylic acid, a cyano group-containing unit, and a sulfonate group-containing unit. The acryl-based copolymer may play a role of fixing the filler on the porous substrate 20 , and may simultaneously provide an adhesion force to adhere the heat resistance layer 30 on the porous substrate 20 and the electrode, and may contribute to an improvement of heat resistance, air permeability, and oxidation resistance of the separator 10.” Id. at [0044]. “[0068] The acryl-based copolymer may have various forms, such as, for example, an alternating polymer where the units are alternately distributed, a random polymer the units are randomly distributed, or a graft polymer where a part of structural unit is grafted.” Id. at [0068]. Regarding the term “an ingredient being eluted by an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond,” elution is the process of extraction of one material via washing with a solvent, i.e. the electrolyte. “Linked through a chemical bond” (e.g. via a side chain linkage), and because Seo teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte, “[0087] the solvent may be a suitable solvent that dissolves or disperses the acryl-based copolymer and the filler,” and a graft polymer (which necessitates linkage), Seo teaches “an ingredient being eluted by an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond.”
If applied to the previous modification of Saeki, the graft polymer of Seo reads upon “a polymer containing an ingredient capable of being eluted with an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond is grafted to the surface of the shell portion.” This is supported by Saeki, which teaches “[0155] as for a polymer forming the shell portion, a polymer containing a (meth) acrylate unit is preferably used. Simultaneously, the acryl-based copolymer of Seo may form a heat resistance layer 30 “[0073] with a cross-linkable binder in addition to the acryl-based copolymer . . . . [including] a polymer including at least two (meth) acrylate groups.” Saeki at [0155], Seo at [0073-74]. This provides evidence that the functional groups on the shell of the core-shell polymer of Saeki (which may include a (meth) acrylate unit) would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to graft to the graft polymer of Seo (which may cross-link with a molecule comprising at least two (meth) acrylate functional groups). Id.
One of ordinary skill in in the art would find it obvious to further modify the modification of Saeki with the graft polymer of Seo such that it comprises “a polymer containing an ingredient capable of being eluted with an electrolyte and linked through a chemical bond is grafted to the surface of the shell portion”, because Seo teaches an improvement to adhesion of the porous coating layer, as well as heat and oxidation resistance.
However, modified Saeki does not directly described the phase separation behavior of the graft polymer; thus, modified Saeki is silent as to “wherein the polymer containing the ingredient capable of being eluted with the electrolyte and linked through the chemical bond is a polymer comprising a chemical structure having affinity to the electrolyte in at least one position selected from a backbone and a side chain of the polymer containing the ingredient so that no phase separation occurs between the polymer containing the ingredient and the electrolyte upon the mixing with the electrolyte.”
Park teaches “[0040] According to an embodiment, a binder composition may include a graft copolymer. The graft copolymer may have a backbone that is derived from a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)-based polymer or copolymer in which fluorine atoms are at least partially substituted with at least one element of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), or iodine (I). A pendant chain may be grafted on the backbone, the pendant chain including a hydrophilic repeating unit.” At [0040- 41]. More specifically, this is a “[0041] A polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer may provide insufficient adhesion as a binder when used in a small amount, or may not form a coating layer durable against impregnation of electrolyte or migration of lithium ions during charging and discharging of a lithium battery. A 2-phase structured binder having a chemical structure with strong adhesion to a porous substrate . . may provide satisfactory adhesion,” which is distinguished from the comparative example 2 where the phases separate, strongly implying no phase separation occurs within this binder. Id. Further, “[0042] In an implementation, the binder composition may have both hydrophilic properties and hydrophobic properties to help improve adhesion to both a porous substrate and adjacent particles of the inorganic oxide. A lithium battery including a separator that includes a binder formed from the binder composition with the improved adhesion may have improved lifetime characteristics . . . [0047] The hydrophilic repeating unit of the pendant chain may be prepared from a vinyl-based monomer.” This reads upon “affinity” because the durability is in part due to the hydrophilic group located upon the graft chain, which is the “ingredient” which is capable of being eluted.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the separator of modified Saeki, such that he polymer containing the ingredient capable of being eluted with the electrolyte and linked through the chemical bond is a polymer comprising a chemical structure having affinity to the electrolyte in at least one position selected from a backbone and a side chain of the polymer containing the ingredient so that no phase separation occurs between the polymer containing the ingredient and the electrolyte upon the mixing with the electrolyte as in Saeki, because Park teaches a benefit to adhesion to the substrate of the separator.
Regarding Claim
Claim 1 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches an embodiment comprising “[0005] a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, with the core of the first binder having a glass transition temperature of 80 ° C or higher and the shell of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of -10 ° C to 10 ° C.” Id. at [0005, 23]. This reads upon the core portion polymer has a glass transition temperature higher than a glass transition temperature of the shell portion polymer.
Claim 2 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches an embodiment comprising “[0005] a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, with the core of the first binder having a glass transition temperature of 80 ° C or higher and the shell of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of -10 ° C to 10 ° C.” Id. at [0005, 23]. This is an overlapping range with “wherein the glass transition temperature of the core portion from 85°C or higher, and the glass transition temperature of the shell portion ranges from -1000C to 20°C.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 3 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Lee teaches “[0023] The resin contained in the core of the first binder and the resin contained in the shell of the first binder are not limited to the same kind as long as they satisfy the respective glass transition temperatures . . . [including] an urethane-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof, and examples thereof include polystyrene, a styrene-butadiene copolymer, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer (Meth) acrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene . . . polyvinyl alcohol . . . copolymers thereof, derivatives thereof, or a combination thereof. Wherein alkyl may be, for example, C1 to C30 alkyl, C1 to C15 alkyl, C1 to C10 alkyl, or C1 to C5 alkyl.” Id. at [0023]. This a presents an embodiment comprising a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, reading upon “the core portion polymer comprises at least one of polystyrene, polystyrene copolymer, polymethyl methacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate copolymer, or polyamide-containing polymer, and the shell portion polymer comprises at least one of acrylate-containing polymer, rubber-containing polymer, urethane-containing polymer, or silicone-containing polymer.”
Claim 4 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Lee teaches “[0023] The resin contained in the core of the first binder and the resin contained in the shell of the first binder are not limited to the same kind as long as they satisfy the respective glass transition temperatures . . . [including] an urethane-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof, and examples thereof include polystyrene, a styrene-butadiene copolymer, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer (Meth) acrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene . . . polyvinyl alcohol . . . copolymers thereof, derivatives thereof, or a combination thereof. Wherein alkyl may be, for example, C1 to C30 alkyl, C1 to C15 alkyl, C1 to C10 alkyl, or C1 to C5 alkyl.” Id. at [0023]. This a presents an embodiment comprising a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, reading upon “wherein the core portion polymer comprises at least one of acrylate-containing polymer, rubber-containing polymer, urethane-containing polymer or silicone-containing polymer, and the shell portion polymer comprises at least one of polystyrene-containing polymer, poly(meth)acrylate-containing polymer, polyamide-containing polymer.”
Claim 7 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Lee teaches [0029] The average particle size of the first binder may be from 70 nm to 300 nm, for example from 70 nm to 250 nm, or from 100 nm to 200 nm. The average particle size of the core of the first binder may also be from 30 nm to 150 nm, for example from 30 nm to 100 nm, or from 40 nm to 80 nm. When the average particle diameter of the first binder and the average particle diameter of the core satisfy the above range, the first binder can exhibit a good binding force with the filler. Here, the average particle size can be calculated by calculating an arithmetic mean of particle diameters of particles other than the upper 10% and lower 10% particles after measuring the particle diameter of 50 or more particles present in the scanning electron microscopic image .” Id. at [0029]. This a presents an overlapping range with “the core- shell structured polymer particles have an average particle diameter of 100 nm to 1 m.”
Claim 8 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Lee teaches [0029] The average particle size of the first binder may be from 70 nm to 300 nm, for example from 70 nm to 250 nm, or from 100 nm to 200 nm. The average particle size of the core of the first binder may also be from 30 nm to 150 nm, for example from 30 nm to 100 nm, or from 40 nm to 80 nm.” Lee at [0029]. This a presents an overlapping range with “a ratio of an average particle diameter of the core portion based on an average particle diameter of the core-shell structured polymer particles is 50% to 90%,“ because “the core-shell” is interpreted as the full “first binder,” and the core region is recited specifically; if for example the average particle size of the core particles is 150nm, and the first binder is 300nm, this is a ratio of 50%.
Claim 9 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Lee teaches [0029] The average particle size of the first binder may be from 70 nm to 300 nm, for example from 70 nm to 250 nm, or from 100 nm to 200 nm. The average particle size of the core of the first binder may also be from 30 nm to 150 nm, for example from 30 nm to 100 nm, or from 40 nm to 80 nm.” Lee at [0029]. This a presents an overlapping range with “a ratio of an average particle diameter of the core portion based on an average particle diameter of the core-shell structured polymer particles is 50% to 90%,“ because “the core-shell” is interpreted as the full “first binder,” and the core region is recited specifically; if for example the average particle size of the core particles is 150nm, and the first binder is 300nm, this is a ratio of 50%.
Claim 9 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Seo teaches “The acryl-based copolymer may be included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 30 wt %, for, or example about 1 wt % to about 20 wt %, about 1 wt % to about 15 wt %, or about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % of the total weight of the heat resistance layer 30 . When the acryl-based copolymer is included in the heat resistance layer 30 within the ranges, the separator 10 may exhibit excellent heat resistance, adherence, air permeability, and oxidation resistance.” Seo at [0072]. This at least suggests an arrangement wherein the heat-resistance layer comprises mainly one copolymer and “an amount of the grafted polymer is 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the core-shell structured polymer particles,” particularly because within this range heat resistance is improved.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify Saeki, such that Saeki comprises an amount of the grafted polymer is 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the core-shell structured polymer particles as in Seo, because Seo teaches a benefit to heat resistance.
Claim 12 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Claim 13 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Saeki teaches the core-shell structured polymer particles comprise: (a) core-shell structured polymer particles in which wherein the shell portion polymer has a higher glass transition temperature as compared to the core portion polymer. Saeki at [0005] (“[0005] a first binder further comprising a polyurethane (the “urethane based polymer”) shell, having a polystyrene core, with the core of the first binder having a glass transition temperature of 80 ° C or higher and the shell of the first binder comprises a resin having a glass transition temperature of -10 ° C to 10 ° C.””) This satisfies one of the three prongs of Claim 13; however, see the Claim 5 analysis below for more discussion on a modification which meets (b) and (c).
Claim 13 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches a separator ([0068] “separator”) comprising: a porous polymer substrate (“[0069] specifically, a microporous membrane . .. such as a polyolefin . . .polyester, polyimide, polyamide, polyurethane, etc. may be used as a separator”). Saeki at [0068-69].This reads upon the porous polymer substrate is a polyolefin-containing porous polymer substrate.
Claim 14 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches an electrochemical device, comprising- a cathode, an anode, and a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the separator is the same as in Claim 1. Saeki at [0003 – 9].
Claim 15 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Park teaches its graft copolymer may comprise a hydrophilic group, which is “prepared from a vinyl-based monomer.” Park at [0047]. Below, a separate binder polymer within Park may be polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). Id. at [0068]. PVA is prepared via a vinyl monomer.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to select as the hydrophilic group PVA, because PVA meets the broad criteria and is cited as an effective binder elsewhere by Park.
Claim 16 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches its separator is utilized within a lithium ion secondary battery which is a nonaqueous electrolyte battery. Saeki at [0003 – 9].
Claim 18 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park.
Claims 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, further in view of Arai, et. al. (US2021305573A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Modified Saeki is silent as to the core portion polymer has a glass transition temperature lower than a glass transition temperature of the shell portion polymer.
Arai teaches a binder composition for an electrical storage device, comprising a particulate polymer wherein “[0019] binder composition for an electrical storage device, the particulate polymer preferably has at least two glass-transition temperatures within a range of −80° C. to 80° C. [0020] In the presently disclosed binder composition for an electrical storage device, a glass-transition temperature of a polymer of the shell portion is preferably higher than a glass-transition temperature of a polymer of the core portion. When the glass-transition temperature of a polymer forming the shell portion (shell polymer) is higher than the glass-transition temperature of a polymer forming the core portion (core polymer), blocking resistance of an electrode can be ensured.” Arai at [0019-20]. Arai further teaches or at least suggests the slurry composition “[0024] can cause an electrical storage device to display excellent rate characteristics.” Id. at [0024]. Arai reads upon “wherein the core portion polymer has a glass transition temperature lower than a glass transition temperature of the shell portion polymer.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the separator of modified Saeki, such that it the core portion polymer has a glass transition temperature lower than a glass transition temperature of the shell portion polymer, because Arai teaches or at least suggests a benefit to rate characteristics.
Claim 5 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, and further in view of Arai.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Modified Saeki is silent as to the core portion polymer has a glass transition temperature lower than a glass transition temperature of the shell portion polymer.
Arai teaches “[0104] The glass-transition temperature of the core polymer is preferably −50° C. or higher, more preferably −40° C. or higher, and even more preferably −37° C. or higher, and is preferably 10° C. or lower, more preferably 0° C. or lower, even more preferably −10° C. or lower, and particularly preferably −28° C. or lower. [0105] Moreover, the glass-transition temperature of the shell polymer is preferably higher than 10° C., more preferably 20° C. or higher, and even more preferably 26° C. or higher, and is preferably 60° C. or lower, more preferably 50° C. or lower, and even more preferably 48° C. or lower.” Arai at [0104 – 105]. Arai presents an overlapping range with “wherein the glass transition temperature of the core portion polymer ranges from -1000C to 20°C.” Further, as previously noted, the glass transition temperature of Arai is “[0101] within a range of −80° C. to 80° C.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, when “one of skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05. Here, two materials with glass transition temperature ranges having a difference of 5 degrees Celsius between the endpoint of the two ranges would be expected to have the same properties. For this reason, Arai reads upon the glass transition of the shell portion polymer ranges from 85°C or higher.
Claim 6 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, and further in view of Arai.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Arai teaches “[0042] The proportion constituted by the core portion among the total of the core portion and the shell portion in the particulate polymer having a core-shell structure is preferably 30 mass % or more, and more preferably 40 mass % or more, and is preferably 70 mass % or less, and more preferably 60 mass % or less when the total mass of the core portion and the shell portion is taken to be 100 mass %. When the proportion constituted by the core portion among the total of the core portion and the shell portion is 30 mass % or more, it is possible to both further increase peel strength of an electrode and further improve rate characteristics of an electrical storage device. On the other hand, when the proportion constituted by the core portion among the total of the core portion and the shell portion is 70 mass % or less, rate characteristics of an electrical storage device can be further improved.” Arai at [0042]. Arai presents an overlapping range with “wherein the core- shell structured polymer particle comprises 100 parts by weight of the core portion and 100 parts by weight to 300 parts by weight of the shell portion,” because as understood, this term presents a 1:1 to 1:3 mass ratio, and Arai teaches 50 mass% of the core portion : 50 mass% of the shell portion which meets the claim term.
Claim 10 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, and further in view of Arai.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, in view of Lee and Seo, further in view of Narutomi, et. al. (US2018358624A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki teaches the polymer having a core-shell structure may comprise b4 resin, wherein b4 resin “may be in the form of particles of . . . a graft polymer.” Saeki at [0082].
Lee teaches the resin contained in the shell of the first binder may comprise “polyvinyl alcohol.” Lee at [0023].
However, modified Saeki does not specify the graft polymer of its core-shell polymer is at least one of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or copolymer thereof, polyethylene glycol (PEG) or copolymer thereof, polypropylene glycol (PPG) or copolymer thereof, polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) or copolymer thereof, or polyacrylonitrile (PAN) or copolymer thereof, or two or more of them.
Narutomi teaches “[0027] The binder composition for positive electrode according to the embodiment of the present invention (hereinafter may be referred to as “binder composition”) includes a graft copolymer obtained by graft copolymerizing, with polyvinyl alcohol (hereinafter may be abbreviated as PVA), a monomer containing acrylonitrile as a main component. This graft copolymer is a copolymer in which side chains of polyacrylonitrile (hereinafter may be abbreviated as PAN) are formed from the main chain of polyvinyl alcohol. In addition to the graft copolymer, a PAN homopolymer and/or a PVA homopolymer not involved in the graft copolymerization may be present in the binder composition. Therefore, the binder composition of the present embodiment may contain a PAN homopolymer and/or a PVA homopolymer in addition to the graft copolymer as the resin component (polymer component). [0028] The monomers to be grafted with PVA have acrylonitrile as an essential component from the viewpoint of oxidation resistance.” Narutomi at [0027-28]. Narutomi teaches or at least suggests this oxidation resistance provides “superior cycle characteristics.” Id. at [0024].
Because modified Saeki comprises a graft copolymer and teaches PVA may be within its shell, the polyacrylonitrile of Narutomi may be applied to its shell as the graft copolymer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the separator of modified Saeki, such that the grafted polymer of modified Saeki comprises polyacrylonitrile or copolymer thereof (i.e., further comprising PVA homopolymer), because Narutomi teaches or at least suggests a benefit to oxidation resistance and superior cycle characteristics.
Claim 11 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, further in view of Narutomi.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, further in view of Lee II, et. al. (KR20180003177A; The Office notes that the first author’s surname is the same as a previously used reference shorthand, and Lee II is utilized to distinguish between the two).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Saeki.
Saeki is silent as to the shell comprising different polymers, wherein “wherein the core portion polymer and the shell portion polymer each comprise polystyrene or a urethane-containing polymer, with the proviso that the core portion polymer and the shell portion polymer are different polymers.”
Lee II teaches “[0018] The binder serves to fix the filler on the porous substrate and may provide an adhesive force so that the heat resistant layer adheres well to the porous substrate and the electrode. [0019] In one embodiment, the binder comprises a first binder and a second binder. [0020] The first binder is a core shell structure including a core and a shell surrounding the core. . . [0022] The first binder may be a structure comprising a physically stable hard core and a soft shell. [0023] The resin contained in the core of the first binder and the resin contained in the shell of the first binder are not limited to the same kind as long as they satisfy the respective glass transition temperatures, Based polymer, a urethane-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof, and examples thereof include polystyrene, . . . copolymers thereof, derivatives thereof, or a combination thereof.” Lee at [0018 – 23]. Lee teaches “[0004] Provided is a separator for a secondary battery which is excellent in mechanical stability at an elevated temperature, adhesion and workability, and which is excellent in heat resistance, stability, and life characteristics,” indicating this core-shell structure provides a benefit to heat resistance, stability, and lifetime characteristics.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the separator of modified Saeki, such that the core portion polymer and the shell portion polymer each comprise polystyrene or a urethane-containing polymer, with the proviso that the core portion polymer and the shell portion polymer are different polymers as in Lee II, because Lee teaches a benefit to heat resistance, stability, and lifetime characteristics.
Claim 17 is obvious over Saeki, in view of Lee, Seo, and Park, further in view of.
Conclusion
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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights