NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY POROUS LAYER

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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/31/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) as evidenced by Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see NPL provided 03/19/2025 for citations). Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Sawamoto discloses an aromatic polyamide porous membrane [0001, 0037] which can be used in a separator for a secondary battery such as a lithium ion secondary battery [0012-0013]. Since a separator constitutes a portion of a battery, the aromatic polyamide porous membrane reads on the recited limitation of a “nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery composition comprising at least one type of a resin having an amide bond” as required by Claim 1, and a “nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer comprising at least one type of a resin having an amide bond” as required by Claim 2. Although Sawamoto does not explicitly disclose that the resin having the amide bond (i.e. the aromatic polyamide porous membrane) contains “a cyclic component” as required by Claims 1 and 2, the Examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that the cyclic component is inherently formed during the synthesis of the resin having an amide bond [instant specification: 0016, 0031, 0045-0050, 0143-0144, 0150, 0157]. As laid out in detail, below, modified Sawamoto renders obvious a substantially similar synthetic method, thereby rendering obvious the presence of an inherently formed cyclic component. See also MPEP 2112.01, I. Specifically, Sawamoto discloses that the resin comprises a flexible portion which is represented by Chemical Formula 1 (i.e. PNG media_image1.png 38 357 media_image1.png Greyscale ) and corresponds to Formula (1) of Claims 1 and 2 [0015-0021]. The structure of the flexible portion can be selected such that “at least one of Ar1 and Ar2 in the chemical formula (2) has a flexible structure represented by any one of group a in the chemical formula (2)” [0015]. The referenced “group a” in chemical formula 2 includes, from a list of options, two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl bond (see chemical formula 2 in [0019-0020] of the original document; [0015-0020]). Additionally, since Sawamoto indicates that “at least one” of the flexible portion can be selected from “group a”, Sawamoto is therefore open to one of either Ar1 or Ar2 being represented by group b (see chemical formula 2 in [0019] of original document). Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected the structure of the flexible aromatic portion to be that of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide (i.e. Ar1 is selected to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl group and Ar2 is selected to be a phenyl group; see Table 1, below) with a reasonable expectation that selecting the flexible portion to be 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide would result in a successful porous layer for use in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery. PNG media_image2.png 303 1049 media_image2.png Greyscale Table 1 showing composition of flexible portion. Although Sawamoto does not teach the starting materials used for the synthesis of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide, it is well-known in the related art that 4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide can be synthesized using monomers of 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulfone (4,4’-DDS) and terephthaloyl chloride (TPC), as evidenced by Zhao (Pg. 343, left column, Par. 1; Pg. 343 “Synthesis of the Polymer”). A resin formed using 4,4’-DDS and TPC is understood to inherently result in the formation of “a cyclic component” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0016-0017, 0031, 0045-0050, 0143-0144, 0150, 0157] and as required by Claims 1 and 2, and the inherently formed cyclic component is understood to be obtained by “condensing both terminals of a chain polymer obtained by linking divalent groups with chemical bonds, wherein at least one of the chemical bonds is an amide bond” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0016, 0031, 0045, 0143-0144]. See also MPEP 2112.01, I. Although modified Sawamoto does not explicitly teach that “a contained amount of the cyclic component being not less than 2.0% by weight and not more than 10.0% by weight relative to a total weight of the resin having the amide bond” as required by Claims 1 and 2, the process of forming the battery composition / porous layer is substantially similar to that disclosed in the instant application (as laid out above), and therefore it is understood that the “cyclic component” is inherently present in the resin at an amount of 2.0-10.0% by weight relative to a total weight of the resin having an amide bond as required by Claims 1 and 2 (MPEP 2112.01). Specifically, the instant application evidences that the process of forming of a resin using 4,4’-DDS and TPC inherently results in a contained amount of the cyclic component which is within the claimed range (instant specification: Examples 1-5 in Table 1; [0167]). Sawamoto discloses that the resin having an amide bond (i.e. the aromatic polyamide porous membrane) comprises a flexible aromatic polyamide portion and a rigid aromatic polyamide portion [0014, 0021-0022]. As discussed previously (see above), the flexible portion of the resin can be selected to be 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide (i.e. in Chemical Formula 1, Ar1 is selected to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl group and Ar2 is selected to be a phenyl group) [0014-0022]. The rigid portion is selected such that both Ar1 and Ar2 are both phenyl groups (see [0019] of original document; [0015-0020]). Accordingly, the structure of the rigid portion disclosed by Sawamoto is that of poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide). This is summarized in Table 2, below. PNG media_image3.png 532 1049 media_image3.png Greyscale Table 2 showing composition of flexible portion and rigid portion. Therefore, as laid out above, modified Sawamoto renders obvious the following limitations as required by Claims 1 and 2: the resin having the amide bond has a structure in which divalent groups are connected by chemical bonds (i.e. either an amide bond or a sulfonyl bond), wherein at least one of these chemical bonds in the amide bond (i.e. NHCO, see above) and at least one of these chemical bonds is a bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond (i.e. the sulfonyl bond). Although modified Sawamoto does not explicitly teach that “the bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond accounts for 15% to 35% of all the chemical bonds connecting the divalent groups in the resin having the amide bond” as required by Claims 1 and 2, the Examiner notes that the claimed content of the “bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond” (i.e. the sulfonyl bond) depends on the content of flexible portion in the resin. Sawamoto discloses that the flexible portion has high pore-forming ability while the rigid portion has strong cohesive strength [0021]. Sawamoto discloses that the flexible portion is preferably 50 to 90 mol% based on the total molar number of flexible and rigid portions [0022]. If the proportion of the flexible portion is less than 50 mol%, the resulting polymer will have high rigidity and reduced pore forming ability [0022]. On the other hand, if the proportion of flexible portion exceeds 90 mol% the resulting polymer becomes coarse with poor light transmittance [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of flexible portion in the resin, thereby inherently optimizing the content of “the bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond” (i.e. sulfonyl bond), including selecting a content of flexible portion which results in the sulfonyl bond accounting for “15% to 35% of all the chemical bonds connecting the divalent groups in the resin having the amide bond” (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation that such a content of flexible portion and resulting content of sulfonyl bond would result in a successful balance between pore forming ability and strength. Sawamoto discloses that the battery porous layer (i.e. aromatic polyamide porous membrane) comprises a flexible portion (reads on block A) and a rigid portion (reads on block B) [0016-0018, 0028]. The rigid portion (block B) is block copolymerized with the flexible portion (block A) [0014, 0043]. Therefore, modified Sawamoto renders obvious that “the at least one type of resin having the amide bond is a block copolymer” including a block A and a block B. Additionally, as previously discussed (see above), Sawamoto renders obvious that block A contains, as a main component, units each represented by Formula (1), and that block B contains, as a main component, units each represented by Formula 2. Accordingly, Sawamoto renders obvious the following limitations required by Claims 1 and 2: “Formula (1): -(NH-Ar1-NHCO-Ar2-CO)- Formula (2): -(NH-Ar3-NHCO-Ar4-CO)- where: Ar1, Ar2, Ar3, and Ar4 may each vary from unit to unit; Ar1, Ar2, Ar3, and Ar4 are each independently a divalent group having more or more aromatic rings”. Since modified Sawamoto renders obvious that block A (flexible portion) is 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide (i.e. wherein all of Ar1 is selected to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl group), modified Sawamoto also renders obvious that “not less than 50% of all Ar1 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond” (corresponds to 100% of Ar1 having the claimed structure). Since modified Sawamoto renders obvious that block B (rigid portion) is poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) (i.e. wherein all of Ar3 is selected to be a phenyl group), modified Sawamoto also renders obvious “not more than 50% of all Ar3 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond” (corresponds to 0% of Ar3 having the claimed structure). As previously discussed (see above), Sawamoto discloses that if the proportion of block A (i.e. flexible portion) is less than 50 mol%, the rigidity of the polymer is too high and the pore forming ability is reduced [0021-0022]. If the proportion of block A (i.e. flexible portion) exceeds 90 mol%, the pore structure becomes coarse and light transmittance may not fall within the desired range [0021-0022]. Therefore, although modified Sawamoto does not specifically disclose that “10% to 70% of a total of all Ar1 and Ar3 units having a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the proportion of block A (flexible portion) to block B (rigid portion), including selecting a proportion which results in “10% to 70% of a total of all Ar1 and Ar3 units having a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond” (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting such a proportion of block A to block B would result in a successful resin having a balance of flexibility and pore forming ability while retaining the desired strength and light transmittance. As previously discussed (see above), Sawamoto renders obvious that block A (flexible portion) is 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide and that block B (rigid portion) is poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide). Accordingly, Sawamoto renders obvious that 100% of the units contained in block A and which are represented by Formula (1) are each 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide, and that 100% of the units contained in block B and represented by Formula (2) are each poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide). These contents are within the claimed ranges of “not less than 50% of the units” as recited in Claims 1 and 2. Although modified Sawamoto does not explicitly teach that “wherein in a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution of the block copolymer, the block A contains 10 to 1000 units each represented by Formula (1), and the block B contains 10 to 500 units each represented by Formula (2)”, Sawamoto discloses that the block A (flexible portion) has high pore-forming ability while the block B (rigid portion) has strong cohesive strength [0021]. The block A (flexible portion) is preferably 50 to 90 mol% based on the total molar number of flexible and rigid portions [0022]. If the proportion of block A (flexible portion) is less than 50 mol%, the resulting polymer will have high rigidity and reduced pore forming ability, while if the proportion of block A (flexible portion) exceeds 90 mol% the resulting polymer becomes coarse with poor light transmittance [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of block A (flexible portion) and block B (rigid portion) in the block copolymer, thereby inherently optimizing the composition of a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution of the block copolymer, including selecting contents of block A and block B which result in a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution wherein block A contains 10 to 1000 units each represented by Formula (1) and block B contains 10 to 500 units each represented by Formula (2), as required by Claims 1 and 2, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between the pore forming ability and rigidity (MPEP 2144.05, II). Regarding Claim 4, modified Sawamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sawamoto discloses that the aromatic polyamide porous membrane has transparency while retaining gas permeability [0007, 0013, 0015-0021] in order to allow for easy inspection of defects during production and detection of the positions of the components when stacking battery components [0013]. Sawamoto further discloses that the thickness of the porous membrane is controlled such that it is not too thin, which can result in the film breaking during processing, and not too thick, which can result in poor light transmittance [0024]. Sawamoto discloses that additives can be added to the film forming solution in order to control the thickness of the resulting porous layer [0024]. The more additives contained in the film forming solution, the thicker the obtained porous layer [0024]. Although Sawamoto does not explicitly teach a filler, wherein the contained amount of the filler is not less than 20% by weight and not more than 90% by weight relative to a total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer, in seeking to obtain a porous layer which does not break during process yet retains sufficient light transmittance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the amount of additive in the porous layer, including selecting the additive to comprise not less than 20% by weight and not more than 90% by weight relative to a total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a content of additive would result in a successful porous layer. Absent a special definition of “filler”, the additive disclosed by Sawamoto is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of a filler, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary which defines filler as “one that fills, such as a substance added to a product (as to increase bulk, weight, viscosity, opacity, or strength)”. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) as evidenced by Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see also NPL provided 03/19/2025) as applied to Claim 2, above, and in view of Sawamoto ‘898 (US-20120308898-A1). Regarding Claim 4, modified Sawamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sawamoto discloses that a hydrophilic polymer may be mixed into the membrane forming solution to improve the pore forming ability [0031-0032]. They hydrophilic polymer is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of a filler as evidenced by the instant specification, which indicates that the fillers can be organic polymers [instant specification: 0060-0062]. Sawamoto does not disclose that a contained amount of the filler is not less than 20% by weight and not more than 90% by weight relative to a total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer. Sawamoto ‘898 teaches a similar aromatic polyamide [0022-0025]. Sawamoto ‘898 teaches that the porous aromatic polyamide film preferably contains a hydrophilic polymer which accounts for 12 to 50 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the aromatic polyamide [0026-0027]. If the hydrophilic polymer content is less than 12 parts by mass, the wettability and retention of an electrolyte solution on the porous film can suffer from deterioration and the internal resistance can increase, while if the hydrophilic polymer content is greater than 50 parts by mass, the porous film may lose heat resistance and strength [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of the hydrophilic polymer in the porous layer of modified Sawamoto, including selecting the content of the hydrophilic polymer to be 20-50% by weight relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer with a reasonable expectation that such a content of hydrophilic polymer would result in a successful balance between wettability and heat resistance / strength, (MPEP 2144.05, II). Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) as evidenced by Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see also NPL provided 03/19/2025) as applied to Claim 2, above, and in view of Sato et al. (JP-2003040999-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025). Regarding Claim 5, modified Sawamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Sawamoto discloses that the porous membrane (i.e. porous layer) can be applied to a separator for a secondary battery [0012-0013, 0037], Sawamoto does not teach that the porous layer is applied to a polyolefin porous film to form a laminated separator. Sato teaches a wholly aromatic polyamide which can be used to form a wholly aromatic porous film for use as a separator in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Pg. 1, Par. 3 – Pg. 2, Par. 1). The aromatic polyamide porous film can be laminated to a porous film having a shutdown function in order to form the separator (Pg. 8, Par. 2; Pg. 9, Pars. 6-8). The porous film having a shutdown function can include a polyolefin layer (Pg. 8, Par. 2; Pg. 9, Par. 2), and the resulting separator can be used in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Pg. 10, Par. 1). Advantageously, the “shutdown function” means that when the temperature inside the battery rises due to a short circuit between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the porous film becomes soft and non-porous, insulating between the electrodes and suppressing a rise in temperature, thereby improving safety (Pg. 8, Par. 2). Therefore, in seeking to suppress a rise in temperature during a short circuit and improve safety, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coated the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer (i.e. aromatic polyamide porous membrane) taught by modified Sawamoto onto a porous shutdown film comprised of polyolefin as taught by Sato to form a laminated separator with a reasonable expectation that such a modification would result in a successful nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator. At least one surface of the polyolefin film would necessarily be coated. Regarding Claims 6-9, modified Sawamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Sawamoto discloses that the porous layer can be applied to a secondary battery [0001, 0012], and that positive electrode, negative electrodes and separators are stacked during battery manufacturing [0003], Sawamoto does not explicitly teach a nonaqueous battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and nonaqueous electrolyte. Sato teaches a wholly aromatic polyamide which can be used to form a wholly aromatic porous film for use as a separator in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Pg. 1, Par. 3 – Pg. 2, Par. 1; Pg. 15, Example 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used, as the secondary battery of modified Sawamoto, a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by Sato with a reasonable expectation that selecting the secondary battery to be a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery would result in a successful secondary battery. Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the porous layer recited in Claim 2 corresponds to the recited limitations of instant Claim 7. Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the laminated separator recited in Claim 5 corresponds to the recited limitations of instant Claim 9. Sato further teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery has a positive electrode (Pg. 10 last paragraph – Pg. 11 Par. 1; Pg. 15, Example 3, Par. 3), a negative electrode (Pg. 11, second to last paragraph; Pg. 15, Example 3, Par. 3), a separator including the aromatic polyamide placed between the positive and negative electrodes (Pg. 15, Example 3, Par. 3), and a nonaqueous electrolyte (Pg. 10, Par. 2; Pg. 15, Example 3, Par. 3). Therefore, although not explicitly disclosed by modified Sawamoto, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have further found it obvious to have formed the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery to have a structure wherein a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode are stacked in that order, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation that stacking a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode would result in a successful nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery. Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising a positive electrode, the porous layer recited in Claim 2, and a negative electrode which are disposed in this order corresponds to the recited limitations of instant Claim 6. Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising a positive electrode, the laminated separator recited in Claim 5, and a negative electrode which are disposed in this order corresponds to the limitations of instant Claim 8. Other Relevant Prior Art Kawahara et al. (JP-2004269655-A; see also English translation provided 06/20/2025) evidences that it is well-known in the prior art to form an aramid film as copolymer of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide and 4,4-diaminodiphenylsulfone (Example 2; [0040, 0042]). The aramid films can have various applications including as a separator for a battery [0044]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that the only flexible aromatic polyamide portion of Chemical Formula (1) exemplified by Sawamoto ‘922 is a copolymer of 4,4’-diamiodiphenyl ether (4,4’-DPE) and 2-chloro-terephthalic acid chloride (CTPC), which is not the claimed 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide (Remarks, Pg. 9). Accordingly, Applicant has argued that Sawamoto fails to teach or suggest the specific proportion of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide units being within the claimed range of “not less than 50%”, and Applicant has argued that Sawamoto is silent with respect to controlling the composition of the flexible portion of the block copolymer to a specific amount (Remarks, Pg. 9). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that although Sawamoto discloses the use of 4,4’-DPE and CTPC in a specific embodiment (Example 1; [0043]), such an embodiment does not teach away from the broad disclosure of Sawamoto, which allows for Ar1 to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl group (i.e. PNG media_image4.png 104 250 media_image4.png Greyscale wherein X = SO2) and which allows Ar2 to be a phenyl group [0014-0020]. See also MPEP 2123, I-II. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that a flexible portion comprised of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide units is within the broader disclosure of Sawamoto. In regards to controlling the composition of the flexible portion, the Examiner notes that Sawamoto is open to a configuration wherein 100% of the flexible portion units are comprised of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide units, which results in a flexible portion comprising “not less than 50%” of 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide constituent units. Applicant has further argued that the rigid aromatic polyamide portion is disclosed as being synthesized using 2-chloro-paraphenylenediamine (CPA) and a diamine monomer (Remarks, Pg. 9). Applicant submits that this contrasts the unsubstituted paraphenylene terephthalamide currently claimed, and that the chlorinated monomer of Sawamoto would result in a structurally and chemically distinct rigid block copolymer (Remarks, Pgs. 9-10). Accordingly, Applicant has argued that Sawamoto fails to teach or suggest controlling the amount of these constituent units to be within the claimed range of “not less than 50%” of the units contained in the rigid portion, and that Sawamoto is silent with respect to controlling the composition of the rigid portion of the block copolymer to a specific amount (Remarks, Pg. 10). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the broad disclosure of Sawamoto is open to unsubstituted polymers (see [0015-0020] of original Sawamoto and translation filed 02/11/2025). See also MPEP 2123, I-II; “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that Sawamoto is open to a rigid aromatic portion wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are each unsubstituted phenyl groups (i.e. PNG media_image5.png 90 186 media_image5.png Greyscale ; see Chemical Formula 2b in [0019] of original Sawamoto). In regards to controlling the composition of the rigid portion, the Examiner notes that Sawamoto is open to a configuration wherein 100% of the flexible portion units are comprised of paraphenylene terephthalamide units, which results in a rigid portion comprising “not less than 50%” of paraphenylene terephthalamide constituent units. Applicant has argued that Sawamoto is completely silent with respect to the claimed molecular weight distribution of the block copolymer, and therefore does not teach that in a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution of said block copolymer, block A contains 10 to 1000 units each represented by Formula (1) and block B contains 10 to 500 units each represented by Formula (2) (Remarks, Pg. 10). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Sawamoto provides motivation to optimize the contents of the flexible aromatic polyamide portion (i.e. block A) and the rigid aromatic polyamide portion (i.e. block B) [0021-0023], thereby inherently altering the composition of a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution of the block copolymer. Absent showings of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the block copolymer to have a content of block A and a content of block B which results in a molecule corresponding to a mode in a molecular weight distribution of the block copolymer where block A contains 10 to 1000 units each represented by Formula (1) and block B contains 10 to 500 units each represented by Formula (2). Applicant has argued that the disclosure of Zhao is entirely unrelated to the incorporation of polysulfonamide fibers in batteries/battery applications (Remarks, Pgs. 10-11). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the current rejections of record merely use Zhao to evidence that 4,4’-DDS and TPC are well-known starting materials used to synthesize 4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide. Applicant has argued that the proposed combination of references would not have recognized the technical benefits of improved initial charge-discharge efficiency (Remarks, Pg. 11). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully notes that Sawamoto discloses motivation to optimize the content of block A (flexible portion) and block B (rigid portion) in order to achieve a balance between pore formation and rigidity [0021-0023]. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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. /D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/29/2026