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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite “a resin having an amide bond” (line 2 of Claims 1 and 2), and later “wherein at least one of these chemical bonds is an amide bond and at least one of these chemical bonds is a bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond” (emphasis added). Here, it is unclear whether the later recitation of “an amide bond” is meant to refer to the previously recited “resin having an amide bond” (i.e. the later recitation should read “the amide bond”), or whether the later recitation of “an amide bond” is meant to introduce a separate amide bond, independent of the previously recited amide bond. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 2 and dependent Claims 3-9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the first interpretation will be applied to the claims.
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) 1-4 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) in view of 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.
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
) [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 and a phenyl group (see chemical formula 2 in [0019] of the original document; [0015-0020]).
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) 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.
Although Sawamoto does not teach the starting materials used for the synthesis of the flexible aromatic polyamide portion, Zhao teaches that 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulfone (4,4’-DDS) and terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) can be used to successfully synthesize poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) (Pg. 343, left column, Par. 1; Pg. 343 “Synthesis of the Polymer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected 4,4’-DDS and TPC as the starting materials for forming the flexible aromatic polyamide portion with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in the successful formation of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide).
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] (MPEP 2112.01).
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 the annotation of Chemical Formula 1, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
383
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chemical Formula 1
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].
Therefore, 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.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sawamoto renders obvious all of the limitations of Claim 2 as laid out, above. 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.
Sawamoto discloses that the flexible portion (block A) and the rigid portion (block B) are both represented by Chemical Formula 1 (i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
38
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), which is the same as the claimed “Formula (1)” and reads on the claimed “Formula (2)” [0015-0021]. As laid out above (see rejection of Claim 2), the structure of the flexible portion (block A) rendered obvious by modified Sawamoto is that of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide), and the structure of the rigid portion (block B) is that of poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0015-0020].
Therefore, modified Sawamoto renders obvious:
the at least one type of the resin having the amide bond is a block copolymer including a block A (flexible aromatic polyamide portion) containing, as a main component, units each represented by Formula (1) below, and a block B (rigid polyamide portion) containing, as a main component, units each represented by Formula (2) below:
Formula 1: -(NH-Ar1-NHCO-Ar2-CO)-
Formula 2: -(NH-Ar3-NHCO-Ar4-CO)-
wherein 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 discussed in the rejection of Claim 2, 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].
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.
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) in view of 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].
In seeking to balance between wettability and heat resistance / strength, 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 (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) in view of Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see also NPL provided 03/19/2025) as applied to Claim 2 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, Sato teaches that 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Kawahara et al. (JP-2004269655-A; see also English translation provided 06/20/2025) in view of Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) and in further view of Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see also NPL provided 03/19/2025 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Kawahara discloses an aramid film [0015-0017, 0042]. The aramid film can be a porous or a non-porous body [0031], and can be used in the art for applications such as electronic devices or batteries [0002].
Therefore, although not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided the aramid film as a porous body for use in a battery (e.g. a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery) with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful aramid film. Since the aramid film constitutes a porous body for use in a battery, the aramid film reads on the recited limitation of a “battery composition comprising at least one type of a resin having an amide bond” as required by Claim 1, and a “battery porous layer comprising at least one type of a resin having an amide bond” as required by Claim 2.
Kawahara discloses an example wherein the aramid film comprises a copolymer wherein a portion of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide is substituted with 4,4-diaminophenylsulfone [0040, 0042]. Although Kawahara discloses a copolymer, Kawahara does not disclose that the copolymer is a block copolymer as required by Claim 3.
Sawamoto teaches a similar aromatic polyamide porous membrane for use in separator for a secondary battery [0001, 0015-0020, 0028, 0043]. The aromatic porous membrane comprises a block copolymer comprising a flexible aromatic polyamide portion and a rigid aromatic polyamide portion [0015-0019, 0028, 0043] which, advantageously, results in a polyamide porous membrane with high pore-forming ability imparted by the flexible polyamide portion and strong cohesive strength imparted by the rigid polyamide portion [0021, 0028].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided the aramid film (i.e. porous layer) of Kawahara as a block copolymer comprising a block of flexible polyamide (reads on block A) and a block of rigid polyamide (reads on block B) as taught by Sawamoto with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful porous layer with both high pore-forming ability and cohesive strength.
Kawahara discloses that the aramid film is composed of parts selected from the structural units: -NH-Ar1-NH- (1); -CO-Ar2-CO- (2); and -NH-Ar3-CO- (3), and that when the structural units (1) and (2) are present, they are substantially equimolar [0015-0017]. The list of possible candidates for Ar1 and Ar2 includes two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl group and a phenyl group [0015-0017]. In a specific example, the aramid film comprises polyparaphenylene terephthalamide [0040] and, in another specific example, the aramid film comprises a copolymer wherein a portion of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide is substituted with 4,4-diaminophenylsulfone [0040, 0042].
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the block copolymer such that it comprises a block A (i.e. flexible portion) formed of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) (i.e. equimolar portions of NH-Ar1-NH and CO-Ar2-CO, wherein Ar1 is selected to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl bond and Ar2 is selected to be a phenyl group) and a block B (i.e. rigid portion) formed of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (i.e. equimolar portions of NH-Ar1-NH and CO-Ar2-CO, wherein both Ar1 and Ar2 are selected to each be a phenyl group) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful block copolymer.
Therefore, modified Kawahara renders obvious the following limitations of instant Claim 3:
the at least one type of the resin having the amide bond is a block copolymer including a block A (i.e. flexible portion formed of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide)) containing, as a main component, units each represented by Formula (1) below, and
a block B (i.e. rigid portion formed of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide) containing, as a main component, units each represented by Formula (2) below:
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 Kawahara renders obvious that block A (flexible portion) is poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfonyl terephthalamide) (i.e. wherein all of Ar1 is selected to be two phenyl groups connected by a sulfonyl bond), modified Kawahara renders obvious “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 Kawahara renders obvious that block B (rigid portion) is polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (i.e. wherein none of Ar3 have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond), modified Kawahara 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).
Although modified Kawahara does not explicitly teach that the resin having the amide bond 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: 0016-0017, 0031, 0045-0050, 0143-0144, 0150, 0157]. As laid out in detail, below, modified Kawahara renders obvious a substantially similar synthetic method, thereby rendering obvious the presence of an inherently formed cyclic component.
Specifically, Kawahara discloses that the aramid can be produced using a conventionally known method [0018], and that the solvent of the aramid solution is not particularly limited as long as it can dissolve the aramid [0021].
Although Kawahara does not disclose the starting materials used to form the polyparaphenylene terephthalamide portion of the block copolymer or the poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) portion of the block copolymer, the starting materials would have been obvious over the teachings of Sawamoto and Zhao, as laid out below.
To form the block copolymer, Sawamoto teaches that starting materials for forming the flexible aromatic polyamide portion are polymerized first, and then the rigid aromatic polyamide starting materials are added to the reaction mixture and polymerized to form a block copolymer [0043]. Sawamoto teaches the use of paraphenylenediamine and terephthalic acid chloride as starting materials to form the rigid portion of the aromatic polyamide, and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent in which polymerization is carried out in [0043].
Zhao teaches that 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulfone (4,4’-DDS) and terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) are used to synthesize poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) (Pg. 343, left column, Par. 1; Pg. 343 “Synthesis of the Polymer”).
Therefore, although Kawahara does not specifically teach the starting materials used to form the block copolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected paraphenylenediamine and terephthalic acid chloride as starting materials to form block B of the block copolymer, to have selected 4,4’-DDS and TPC as the starting materials for forming block A of the block copolymer, and to have selected NMP as the solvent of the polymerization reaction, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in the successful formation of a porous layer comprising a block copolymer including units of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (i.e. block B) and units of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) (i.e. block A).
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 in an amide bond” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0016, 0031, 0045, 0143-0144] and as required by Claims 1 and 2.
Although modified Kawahara 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]).
As laid out above, modified Kawahara renders obvious that block A is poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) and block B is polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (see above). Therefore, modified Kawahara 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 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 of block A).
Although modified Kawahara 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, or that “10% to 70% of a total of all Ar1 and Ar3 units have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond” as required by instant Claim 3, the Examiner notes that the claimed “bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond” of Claims 1 and 2 corresponds to the claimed sulfonyl bond of Claim 3. Therefore, the recited contents depend on the content of flexible portion (i.e. block A) in the resin.
Sawamoto teaches that the flexible portion has high pore-forming ability while the rigid portion has strong cohesive strength [0021]. Sawamoto teaches 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].
Therefore, 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” and the content of “a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond”, including selecting a content of flexible portion (block A) 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” as required by Claims 1 and 2, and a content of flexible portion (block A) such that “10% to 70% of a total of all Ar1 and Ar3 units have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond” as required by instant Claim 3 (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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (JP-2004269655-A; see also English translation provided 06/20/2025) in view of Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) and in further view of 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 in view of Nishino et al. (US-20060141341-A1; cited in IDS filed 06/02/2025).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kawahara renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the porous layer (aramid film) can be applied to a battery (see rejection of Claim 2, above). Although Kawahara further discloses that known additives, such as heat stabilizers, can be added to the porous (aramid) layer [0037], Kawahara does not explicitly disclose the addition of a filler in the porous layer.
Nishino teaches a heat-resistant layer which can comprise an aramid resin and inorganic oxide filler [0107] and can be formed on the separator of a battery ([0032], Table 11). The heat-resistant layer of Nishino corresponds to the porous layer of modified Kawahara. Advantageously, Nishino teaches that the inorganic oxide filler has high thermal resistance such that the heat-resistant layer can maintain high mechanical strength even when the battery temperature becomes relatively high [0055].
Therefore, in seeking to maintain high mechanical strength at high temperatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included inorganic oxide filler (corresponds to claimed “filler”) in the porous layer (aramid film) of modified Kawahara with a reasonable expectation that the addition of inorganic oxide filler would result in a successful porous layer.
Although modified Kawahara does not teach 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, Nishino further teaches that the content of inorganic oxide filler is preferably not less than 50 wt% and not more than 99 wt% [0061]. When the content of inorganic oxide filler is below 50 wt%, the content resin component is excessively large, and the control of the pore structure becomes difficult [0061]. However, when the content of inorganic oxide filler is above 99 wt%, the amount of resin component is excessively small, and the mechanical strength or the adhesion of the heat-resistant layer to the separator surface might be impaired [0061].
Therefore, in seeking to control pore structure while maintaining mechanical strength and adhesion, 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 inorganic oxide filler, including providing 50% to 90% by weight of inorganic oxide filler relative to a total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer (MPEP 2144.05, II), with a reasonable expectation that providing 50% to 90% by weight of inorganic oxide filler would result in a successful porous layer for use in a battery.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (JP-2004269655-A; see also English translation provided 06/20/2025) in view of Sawamoto et al. (JP-2014194922-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025) and in further view of Zhao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of All Para-Position Polysulfonamide Fiber”; see also NPL provided 03/19/2025 for citations) as applied to Claim 2 and in view of in view of Sato et al. (JP-2003040999-A; see also English translation provided 03/19/2025).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kawahara renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Kawahara renders obvious that the porous layer can be applied to a battery (see rejection of Claim 2), Kawahara does not teach that the porous layer is formed on one surface or both surfaces of a polyolefin film to form a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery 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, Sato teaches that 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 due to a short circuit and improve the safety of a secondary battery, 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 porous layer (i.e. aramid film) taught by modified Kawahara 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 Kawahara renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Kawahara renders obvious that the porous layer (aramid film) can be applied to a battery (see rejection of Claim 2, above), Kawahara does not 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).
Both modified Kawahara and Sato teach porous aromatic polyamide films for use in a separator for a secondary battery. Therefore, 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 battery of modified Kawahara, a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that selecting the battery to be a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery would result in a successful battery.
Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the porous layer recited in Claim 2 corresponds to instant Claim 7. Forming a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the laminated separator recited in Claim 5 corresponds to 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 taught by modified Kawahara, 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, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully and carefully considered, but were respectfully not found persuasive. Applicant has argued that the cited prior art fails to teach a resin having an amide bond which includes a structure in which a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond accounts for 15% to 35% of all the chemical bonds connecting divalent groups in the resin (Remarks, Pg. 6).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejections of record (above), Sawamoto and Kawahara both render obvious that the resin having an amide bond comprises a flexible portion comprising poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) (see rejections of Claims 1 and 2, above). Since poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) contains divalent groups connected by a sulfonyl bond, the prior art thereby renders obvious a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond. Additionally, Sawamoto provides motivation to optimize the content of flexible polyamide portion (i.e. the portion comprising the sulfonyl bond) within the resin, including such that a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond (i.e. the sulfonyl bond) accounts for 15% to 35% of all the chemical bonds connecting divalent groups in the resin (see rejection of Claims 1 and 2; [Sawamoto: 0021-0022]).
Applicant has argued that the technique of enhancing the high-voltage resistance of a battery porous layer by controlling the proportion of the chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond to within a specific range was neither know nor appreciated in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to expect such a superior high-voltage resistance and overall battery performance as described in the present application (Remarks, Pg. 6).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. 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. See MPEP 2145, II.
Arguments regarding the rejections based on modified Sawamoto:
Applicant has argued that Sawamoto is silent with respect to a structure of the aromatic polyamide which specifically incorporates a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than that of the amide bond, and further does not suggest controlling the proportion of such a bond to within the presently claimed range of 15% to 35% of all chemical bonds linking divalent groups in the aromatic polyamide (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant has argued that Sawamoto does not distinguish between any types of chemical bonds, much less differentiate an amide bond from a chemical bond which exhibits a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond (e.g. sulfonyl and carbonyl bonds), and further does not suggest that varying the proportion of chemical bonds linking divalent groups would have any impact on resistance (and other battery properties) (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant has asserted that Sawamoto lacks any teaching or suggestion with respect to a resin having an amide bond which contains a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond (Remarks, Pgs. 7-8).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. As laid out in the rejections of record (see above), Sawamoto discloses a block copolymer comprising a flexible portion and a rigid portion [Sawamoto: 0014-0022]. The flexible portion can have connectivity beyond an amide bond, and Sawamoto renders obvious that the flexible portion can include divalent groups connected by a sulfonyl bond (Sawamoto: [0014-0020]; see also [0017-0020] of original document). Sawamoto discloses that the flexible portion has high pore forming ability [0021], and contemplates adjusting the mol% of flexible portion within the resin in order to achieve a balance between porosity and strength [0021-0022]. Therefore, the Examiner submits that Sawamoto renders obvious a resin having not only an amide bond but also a sulfonyl bond (i.e. a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond). Additionally, Sawamoto provides motivation to optimize the content of the flexible portion, thereby inherently adjusting the content of sulfonyl bonds in regards to all the chemical bonds connecting divalent groups in the resin, including such that the sulfonyl bonds constitute 15% to 35% of all chemical bonds connecting divalent groups (MPEP 2144.05, II). In regards to the argument that Sawamoto does not suggest that varying the proportion of chemical bonds linking divalent groups would have any impact on resistance and other battery properties (Remarks, Pg. 7), 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. See MPEP 2145, II.
Applicant has argued that Zhao, which is relied upon to teach starting materials in the synthesis of poly(4,4’-diphneylsulfone terephthalamide) does not cure the deficiencies of Sawamoto (Remarks, Pg. 8). Applicant has argued that Zhao teaches disadvantages of poly(4,4’-diphneylsulfone terephthalamide) as a precursor for polymer applications considering its poor solubility (Remarks, Pg. 8).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully notes that Zhao is not relied upon to teach the newly added limitations regarding the divalent groups connected by a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond. The Examiner notes that Sawamoto contemplates poly(4,4’-diphneylsulfone terephthalamide) as a possible identity for the flexible polyamide portion [Sawamoto: 0015-0020], and therefore Zhao is not relied upon to teach the identity of the flexible polyamide portion. Instead, Zhao is merely relied upon to teach starting materials which can be used to form poly(4,4’-diphneylsulfone terephthalamide).
Applicant has argued that Sawamoto ‘898 and Sato do not cure the deficiencies of Sawamoto (Remarks, Pgs. 8-9).
In response, the Examiner notes that neither Sawamoto ‘898 nor Sato are relied upon to teach the newly added limitation (see rejection of Claims 1 and 2 over Sawamoto, above).
Applicant has argued that the technical benefits of enhanced high-voltage resistance of the presently claimed porous layer would not have been expected over the proposed combination of references (Sawamoto ‘922, Zhao, Sawamoto ‘898, and/or Sato) (Remarks, Pg. 9).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. 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. See MPEP 2145, II. The Examiner notes that Sawamoto provides motivation to optimize the content of flexible polyamide portion to rigid polyamide portion within the resin [Sawamoto: 0021-0022]. Therefore, although the prior art did not explicitly recognize the benefit of enhanced high-voltage resistance, such an advantage would naturally flow from the optimization of flexible polymer to rigid polymer.
Arguments regarding the rejections over Kawahara:
Applicant has argued that Kawahara, like Sawamoto, does not distinguish between amide bonds and non-amide bonds (specifically those having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond), and does not teach a copolymer in which the proportion of the bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing group than the amide bond accounts for 15% to 35% of all bonds connecting divalent groups (Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant has argued that Kawahara does not contain any disclosure to support varying the ratio of different types of chemical bonds connecting divalent aromatic groups in the copolymer of the aramid film in order to reach the claimed content of strong electron-withdrawing group (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Kawahara discloses an example wherein the aramid film comprises a copolymer wherein a portion of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide is substituted with 4,4-diaminophenylsulfone [Kawahara: 0040, 0042]. Therefore, Kawahara contemplates a resin which includes both amide bonds and sulfonyl bonds (i.e. a bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing group than the amide bond). Sawamoto is relied upon to provide motivation to optimize the content of 4,4-diaminophenylsulfone within the resin [Sawamoto: 0021-0022], thereby inherently adjusting the content of sulfonyl bonds, including a content of 4,4-diaminophenylsulfone which results in a content of sulfonyl bonds within the claimed range (see rejection of Claims 1 and 2, above).
Applicant has argued that Kawahara does not teach or suggest that incorporating a bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than that of the amide bond at the presently claimed proportion carries any consequential impact on voltage resistance or battery performance (Remarks, Pgs. 9-10). Applicant has submitted that Kawahara’s discussion of heat resistance is broad an unspecific, and is not attributed to any specific property, much less the specific proportion of amide and non-amide chemical bonds connecting the divalent groups in the aramid film (Remarks, Pg. 10). Accordingly, Applicant has argued that a skilled artisan reading Kawahara would neither be motivated to include a chemical bond having a stronger electron withdrawing property than the amide bond, nor expect substantial improvements in the high-voltage resistance upon controlling the proportion of that bond to within the range of 15% to 35% (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the rejections over Kawahara rely on Sawamoto to provide motivation to optimize the content of sulfonyl bonds within the resin. Sawamoto uses a different motivation (i.e. in order to achieve a balance between porosity and strength; [Sawamoto: 0021-0022]). 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. See MPEP 2145, II.
Applicant has argued that modifying Kawahara with Sawamoto does not cure the deficiency of Kawahara, since modifying Kawahara’s copolymer to be a block copolymer of poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) and polyparaphenylene terephthalamide would not arrive at the presently claimed invention, as such a block copolymer would not contain a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than an amide bond at the specific proportion of 15% to 35% of all chemical bonds connecting divalent groups therein (Remarks, Pg. 11).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that a block copolymer comprising poly(4,4’-diphenylsulfone terephthalamide) does indeed comprise a chemical bond having a stronger electron-withdrawing property than the amide bond (i.e. a sulfonyl bond). In regards to the claimed content of strong electron-withdrawing bond, Sawamoto provides motivation to optimize the content of flexible portion, thereby inherently optimizing the content of strong electron-withdrawing bonds (i.e. sulfonyl bonds) within the resin, as discussed above.
Applicant has further argued that Sawamoto, Zhao, Nishino, and Sato all fail to cure the deficiencies of Kawahara, and therefore the combination of references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (Remarks, Pg. 11).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive since Zhao, Nishino and Sato are not relied upon for such teachings. Sawamoto is relied upon, and is considered relevant to the amended claims as discussed in detail, above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights