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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's reply filed 2/25/2026 includes claim amendments and arguments. Applicant’s amendments resolve all Claim Objections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant argues the art of record does not disclose new Claim 8, and also does not disclose the amended Claim 1 limitation “a proportional content of the repeating unit X in the polymer B is not less than 10 mass% and not more than 60 mass%.” Examiner agrees the art of record does not teach or suggest all limitations of amended Claim 1 and Claim 8. After an updated search and consideration, the claimed invention remains obvious, and is rejected over new references.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 includes the limitation “a proportional content of a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit including an alkyl group having a carbon number of 4 or more in the polymer B is not less than 0 mass% and not more than 5 mass%” (see lines 5-7 of the claim). Although the claimed content range is supported by the instant specification (see [0012]), the bounds of the range are unclear, and therefore indefinite.
The minimum value of the claimed range must start at 0 mass%. A proportional content cannot be expressed in a negative mass percent. A (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer content in polymer B will never be “less than 0 mass%” as claimed.
Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed range is a minimum value of 0 mass% and a maximum value of 5 mass%. For the purpose of this action, lines 5-7 of the claim will be examined as “a proportional content of a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit including an alkyl group having a carbon number of 4 or more in the polymer B is 0 mass% to 5 mass%.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al., WO 2019131348 A1 (English-equivalent US 20200335827 A1 used for citations), and further in view of So et al., KR 102020844 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugimoto discloses a composition for an electrochemical device functional layer (a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer [0014]) comprising a particulate polymer (core-shell structure particulate polymer [0032-0081]), a binder (binder [0021, 0095-0101]), and heat-resistant
fine particles (non-conductive particles [0094]), wherein
the particulate polymer has a core-shell structure including a core portion formed of a polymer A (core polymer A [0040-0067]) and a shell portion formed of a polymer B that at least partially covers an outer surface of the core portion (core is partially covered by shell polymer B [0037-0038, 0068-0083]), with the polymer A and the polymer B being different from each other ([0039]), and
the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter within the range of 1.0 µm or more and 10 µm or less (0.05 µm to 1.5 µm [0085-0086]),
the polymer B includes a repeating unit X that includes at least one among a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, and a proportional content of the repeating unit X in the polymer B is not less than 10 mass% and not more than 60 mass% (acrylonitrile monomer is preferably used in polymer B, at a proportion of 1 mass % to 20 mass % [0073-0075]).
Sugimoto does not disclose “the particulate polymer has an electrolyte solution contact angle of not less than 0° and not more than 35°” per Claim 1. However, this limitation is taught by So et al.
So teaches an electrochemical device binder film comprising a core-shell polymer ([0013-0025]). So also teaches a contact angle of an electrolyte with respect to the binder film is “more preferably 30° or less” in order to ensure proper wettability/dispersion of the electrolyte ([0133-0136]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the particulate polymer of Sugimoto possess an electrolyte solution contact angle within the claimed range of “not less than 0° and not more than 35°,” as So teaches a similar range (less than 30°) ensures electrolyte wettability.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugimoto discloses the polymer A includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit including an alkyl
group having a carbon number of 4 or more in a proportion of 10 mass% or more (Sugimoto, polymer A has one or more(meth)acrylic acid ester monomers, 20 mass% to 95 mass % [0043-0048]), and
a proportional content of a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit including an alkyl group having a carbon number of 4 or more in the polymer B is not less than 0 mass% and not more than 5 mass% (Sugimoto, the proportion constituted by a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit in the polymer B is particularly preferably 0.5 mass % or more and particularly preferably 3 mass % or less; process adhesiveness can be increased at 5 mass % or less [0081]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugimoto discloses a laminate for an electrochemical device (Sugimoto, laminate for non-aqueous secondary battery [0023]) comprising a substrate (Sugimoto, releasable substrate [0113, 0124]) and the functional layer of Claim 1 is formed on the substrate (Sugimoto, functional layer is formed on the surface of a releasable substrate [0113]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugimoto discloses an electrochemical device comprising the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 6 (Sugimoto, nonaqueous secondary battery [0241-0248]).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sugimoto as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka, WO 2019221056 A1 (English-equivalent US 20210313580 A1 used for citations).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “the particulate polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than 150 mass% and not more than 1,200 mass%,” modified Sugimoto discloses the degree of swelling of the core portion of the polymer is within the claimed range (Sugimoto, 150 mass% or more and 1200 mass% or less [0059-0067]). However, modified Sugimoto does not teach or suggest a swelling range for the overall particulate core-shell polymer.
Tanaka teaches a core-shell particulate polymer in an electrochemical device ([0034-0044]). Tanaka teaches when a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of the particulate polymer is a factor of 1.01 or more, battery members can be even more strongly adhered in electrolyte solution, and when the degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of the particulate polymer is a factor of 20 or less, low-temperature output characteristics of a secondary battery can be further improved ([0092]). Tanaka teaches a most preferable degree of swelling in the range of “a factor of 1.2 or more, and a factor of 10 or less” ([0092]; equivalent to a range of 120% to 1,000%).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the particulate polymer of modified Sugimoto have a degree of swelling within the claimed range of “150 mass% and not more than 1,200 mass%,” as Tanaka teaches a similar preferred range (120% to 1,000%) will improve adhesion and low-temperature output characteristics of the battery.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugimoto discloses the polymer A includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit (Sugimoto, monomers that can be used to produce polymer A include “aromatic vinyl monomers such as styrene, α-methylstyrene, styrene sulfonic acid, butoxystyrene, and vinylnaphthalene” [0043, 0195]). However, modified Sugimoto does not disclose “a proportional content of the aromatic vinyl monomer unit in the polymer A is not less than 60 mass% and not more than 99 mass%.” However, this limitation is also taught by Tanaka.
Tanaka teaches a proportion constituted by an aromatic vinyl monomer unit in the polymer of the core portion is within the range of 50 mass% to 95 mass% ([0049-0053]). Tanaka teaches the 50 mass% to 75 mass% aromatic vinyl monomer content range in the core allows the particulate polymer to have an adhesive property, which strongly adheres components in the battery ([0053]). See Table 1, core compositions of preferred Examples 1-8 include 70 mass% to 88 mass% styrene (“ST”).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have polymer A of modified Sugimoto comprise an aromatic vinyl monomer within the claimed range of 60 mass% to 99 mass %, as Tanaka teaches a similar content range (50 mass% to 95 mass%) will improve adhesion characteristics of the battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sugimoto as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahara et al., WO 2016111063 A1 (cited in previous action).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sugimoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugimoto does not disclose a “bulk specific gravity α of the particulate polymer and bulk specific gravity β of the heat-resistant fine particles satisfy a relationship 1 <β/α< 5” per Claim 5. However, this limitation is taught by Takahara.
Takahara teaches a composition for a functional layer (second coat, slurry-like insulating material on separator; pg. 10) comprising a polymer (polypropylene; pg. 10), a binder (binder such as PVDF or rubber; pg. 10), and heat-resistant particles (inorganic oxide particles such as alumina/Al2O3; pg. 10; consistent with instant disclosure at [0072]). Takahara teaches when the slurry has particles with different specific gravities, a layer of fine particles with a relatively low specific gravity (polypropylene) migrates to be an upper layer, and a layer made of fine particles with a relatively high specific gravity (inorganic particles) becomes a lower layer (pg. 11, 14). Takahara teaches the coating film having a two-layer structure provides superior heat resistance compared to a coating film not separated into two layers (pg. 15). Takahara’s specific gravity α of the particulate polymer (polypropylene, 0.90 to 0.91 g/cm; pg. 11) and specific gravity β of the heat-resistant fine particles (alumina, 3.9 to 4.1 g/cm; pg. 11) yield a “β/α” range of 4.3 to 4.6, which is within the claimed range of 1 <β/α< 5.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a bulk specific gravity α of the particulate polymer and bulk specific gravity β of the heat-resistant fine particles satisfy a relationship 1 <β/α< 5, in the functional layer of modified Sugimoto, as Takahara teaches the claimed difference in specific gravities will create a coating layer for a separator having increased heat resistance.
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights