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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP 6304039 B2, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneda teaches a binder for a secondary battery functional layer comprising (paragraph 0032, binder A):
a particulate polymer (paragraph 0032, particulate binder A is formed from a polymer), wherein
the particulate polymer includes a cyano group-containing monomer unit (Table 1, Example 1, binder A, acrylonitrile (AN)), a cyclic ether-containing monomer unit (Table 1, Example 1, binder A, allyl glycidyl ether (AGE)), and a carboxyl group-containing monomer unit (methacrylic acid (MAA)), and
proportional content of the cyclic ether-containing monomer unit in the particulate polymer is 5 mass% or more (paragraph 0055, ratio of crosslinkable monomer unit is preferably 0.2% by weight or more and 5.0% by weight or less).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda further teaches wherein the proportional content of the cyclic ether-containing monomer unit in the particulate polymer is 40 mass% or less (paragraph 0055, ratio of crosslinkable monomer unit is preferably 0.2% by weight or more and 5.0% by weight or less).
Regarding claim 5, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda further teaches wherein proportional content of the cyano group-containing monomer unit in the particulate polymer is not less than 2 mass% and not more than 30 mass% (Table 1, Example 1, binder A, acrylonitrile (AN) at 2.0 weight%).
Regarding claim 6, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda further teaches wherein proportional content of the carboxyl group-containing monomer unit in the particulate polymer is not less than 0.1 mass% and not more than 10 mass% (Table 1, Example 1, binder A, methacrylic acid (MAA) at 2.0 weight%).
Regarding claim 7, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda further teaches wherein the particulate polymer further includes a (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester monomer unit (paragraph 0034, (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit with alkyl group), and proportional content of the (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester monomer unit in the particulate polymer is not less than 40 mass% and not more than 92 mass% (paragraph 0036, proportion of (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit is preferably 50% by weight or more and more preferably 97% by weight or less). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda further teaches a slurry composition for a secondary battery functional layer comprising the binder for a secondary battery functional layer according to claim 1 (paragraph 0008, slurry comprising binder A).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kaneda further teaches the slurry composition of claim 10 further comprising functional particles (paragraph 0008, slurry comprising non-conductive particles).
Regarding claim 12, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 11. Kaneda further teaches wherein the functional particles include non-conductive particles (paragraph 0008, non-conductive particles).
Regarding claim 14, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kaneda further teaches a functional layer for a secondary battery formed using the slurry composition for a secondary battery functional layer according to claim 10 (paragraph 0008, porous membrane for a secondary battery separator formed by applying the slurry and drying it).
Regarding claim 15, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 14. Kaneda further teaches a secondary battery comprising the functional layer for a secondary battery according to claim 14 (paragraph 0008, secondary battery comprising a separator with the porous membrane).
Claims 3, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP 6304039 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 2016/0351873 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda does not teach wherein the particulate polymer has one glass-transition temperature.
Sasaki teaches wherein the particulate polymer has one glass-transition temperature (paragraph 0082, particulate copolymers that are random copolymers have one glass-transition temperature).
Kaneda and Sasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary battery functional layer polymer binders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki so that the particulate polymer is a random copolymer, wherein the particulate polymer has one glass-transition temperature. Doing so would allow the polymer to be homogenized, improve the durability of the polymer with respect to an electrolysis solution, and improve the dispersibility of the polymer in a composition for porous membrane use (Sasaki paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda does not teach wherein the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of 20°C or lower.
Sasaki teaches wherein the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of 20°C or lower (paragraph 0196, particulate polymer with one glass-transition temperature of -8°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the binder as taught by Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki using known methods so that wherein the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of 20°C or lower, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of maintaining polymer flexibility at operating temperatures. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda does not teach wherein the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 μm and not more than 0.25 μm.
Sasaki teaches wherein the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 μm and not more than 0.25 μm (paragraph 0093, volume average particle diameter preferably at least 0.05 μm and more preferably no greater than 0.5 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki so that wherein the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 μm and not more than 0.25 μm. Doing so would result in a porous membrane having good durability (Sasaki paragraph 0093).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP 6304039 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2016/0036055 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kaneda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kaneda does not teach wherein the particulate polymer has a gel content of 85 mass% or more.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the particulate polymer has a gel content of 85 mass% or more (paragraph 0150, gel content of the third particulate binder that includes the copolymer (C) is preferably 70% by mass or more to 98% by mass or less).
Kaneda and Yamamoto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary battery functional layer polymer binders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki so that wherein the particulate polymer has a gel content of 85 mass% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would improve adherence and suppress deterioration of electrical characteristics such as cycle characteristics (Yamamoto paragraph 0152).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP 6304039 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wakizaka et al. (KR 20120027245 A, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 13, Kaneda teaches the slurry composition for a secondary battery functional layer according to claim 12. Kaneda does not teach wherein the non-conductive particles have a volume-average particle diameter of 1.5 μm or less.
Wakizaka et al. teaches wherein the non-conductive particles have a volume-average particle diameter of 1.5 μm or less (paragraphs 0035 and 0246 and Example 2, aluminum oxide particles with volume average particle diameter 0.3 µm used as non-conductive particles).
Kaneda and Wakizaka et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary battery functional layer polymer binders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Wakizaka et al. so that wherein the non-conductive particles have a volume-average particle diameter of 1.5 μm or less. Doing so would provide excellent dispersion, application ease, and pore controllability (Wakizaka et al. paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 January 2026