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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted July 4, 2023, October 12, 2023, and October 29, 2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. US-20180327639-A1 (hereinafter “Tanaka”) in view of Sasaki et al. US-20170200932-A1 (hereinafter “Sasaki”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka discloses a composition for an electrochemical device functional layer (adhesive layer) comprising a particulate polymer (organic particles forming a polymer), a binder, and heat-resistant fine particles (non-conductive particles such as alumina, which the instant application discloses is a heat-resistant fine particle (see paragraphs [0106] and [0111] of the published instant application)) (see abstract and paragraphs [0017], [0028]-[0032], [0096]-[0101], and [0103]), wherein
the particulate polymer includes a polymer A and a polymer B (core and shell units, respectively), the polymer A is a polymer including a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit (such as methyl methacrylate) and an acidic group-containing monomer unit (see paragraphs [0021], [0030]-[0032], and [0036]-[0040]), and
the polymer B is a polymer having a different chemical composition from the polymer A (see paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
Tanaka is silent on the particulate polymer having a volume-average particle diameter of more than 1.0 μm and not more than 10.0 μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of functional layers in electrochemical devices (batteries) (see abstract), Sasaki discloses a composition for an electrochemical device (secondary battery) functional layer comprising a particulate polymer, a binder, and heat-resistant fine particles (see abstract and paragraphs [0021], [0028]-[0029], [0072]-[0073], [0115], and [0121]),
the particulate polymer includes a polymer A and a polymer B (core and shell units), the polymer A is a polymer including a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit (see paragraphs [0060], [0072]-[0073]), and
the polymer B is a polymer having a different chemical composition from the polymer A (see paragraphs [0060] and [0095]).
Sasaki further discloses the organic particles of the particulate polymer preferably have a volume-average diameter of 0.3 μm or more and 10 µm or less (see paragraph [0058]). This range substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the particulate polymer having a volume-average particle diameter of more than 1.0 μm and not more than 10.0 μm.
Sasaki additionally discloses if the volume average diameter is at least the lower limit value, it is possible to increase adhesion of the functional layer, as well as to suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer and if the volume average diameter is no greater than the lower upper limit value, it is possible to improve low-temperature output characteristics, as well as to increase adhesion between the electrode and separator bonded together with the functional layer (see paragraph [0058]). As such, the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of more than 1.0 μm and not more than 10.0 μm, as disclosed by Sasaki, in order to achieve a functional layer with increased adhesion, suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer, and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tanaka discloses composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses the acidic group-containing monomer unit of the polymer A is a (meth)acrylic acid monomer unit ((meth)acrylic acid is preferred acid group-containing monomer) (see paragraphs [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tanaka discloses composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses the polymer A has a glass-transition temperature of 60° C. or above and 80° C or below (see paragraph [0057]). This substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of wherein the polymer A has a glass-transition temperature of not lower than 60° C. and not higher than 85° C.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses the organic particles have a weight-average molecular weight of 100 to 10,000, with a specific example of the molecules having a weight-average molecular weight of 8,000 (see paragraphs [0011], [0022], [0029]-[0030], and [0179]-[0180]).
Tanaka additionally discloses the appropriate weight-average molecular weight results in an adhesive layer which exhibits good adhesion even by heat treatment at lower temperatures for shorter time (see paragraphs [0011] and [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer wherein the polymer A has a weight-average molecular weight falling in the range of not less than 5,000 and not more than 100,000 in order to achieve an adhesive layer which exhibits good adhesion even by heat treatment at lower temperatures for shorter time.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses the average ratio of shell coverage on the core outer surface may be 10% or more and 99.9% or less and with the average ratio of shell coverage on the core outer surface falling within this range, it is possible to ensure a good balance between ion conductivity and adhesion in electrolysis solution (see paragraphs [0070]). As such, the shell coverage is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Further, Sasaki discloses the average shell thickness in percentage relative to the volume-average particle diameter D50 of the organic particles (core-shell ratio) is preferably 1.5% or more and 30% or less to increase adhesion of the functional layer and improve low-temperature output characteristics of a secondary battery (see paragraph [0108]). As such, the shell thickness is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
By optimizing the shell (which contains polymer B) coverage and thickness, the proportion of polymer A would also necessarily be optimized as changing the proportion of polymer B via coverage and thickness amount changes the proportion the Polymer A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein the particulate polymer includes the polymer A in a proportion of not less than 0.1 mass % and not more than 10 mass % based on the particulate polymer, as taught by Tanaka and Sasaki, in order to ensure a good balance between ion conductivity and adhesion in electrolysis solution as well as to increase adhesion of the functional layer and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses wherein the polymer B includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit (see paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka discloses the heat-resistant fine particles are inorganic fine particles (alumina) (see paragraph [0103]).
Tanaka is silent on wherein the inorganic fine particles have a volume-average particle diameter that is not less than 2% and not more than 25% of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer.
However, Sasaki discloses the volume average particle diameter of the inorganic fine particles is preferably 0.1 μm or more and 0.8 µm or less (see paragraph [0033]). Sasaki additionally discloses the functional layer that exerts superior protection function, so that the battery capacity can be increased when the volume average particle diameter of the inorganic fine particles is in the aforementioned range. As such, the volume average diameter of the inorganic fine particles is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer is also viewed as a result effective variable. So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the volume average diameter of both the particulate polymer and inorganic particles, which would result in optimizing the relationship between the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer and inorganic particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein the inorganic fine particles have a volume-average particle diameter that is not less than 2% and not more than 25% of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer, as taught by Sasaki, as a result of optimizing the volume average diameter of both the particulate polymer and inorganic particles in order to achieve a functional layer that exerts superior protection function, increase adhesion, suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer, and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses wherein the binder is a polymer including a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit and having a different chemical composition from the polymer A and the polymer B (see paragraphs [0097]-[0100], [0183]-[0184], and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tanaka further discloses a functional layer for an electrochemical device formed using the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to aforementioned claim 1 (see abstract and paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Tanaka discloses the functional layer for an electrochemical device according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). Tanaka further discloses the functional layer comprises heat-resistant fine particles (and as such can be viewed as a heat-resistant fine particle layer) and the particulate polymer (i.e., the particulate polymer is partially embedded in the heat-resistant fine particle layer) (see paragraphs [0102]-[0103]). Tanaka also discloses the thickness of the functional layer may be 3 μm or less (see paragraph [0106]).
Tanaka is silent on a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer being not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0.
However, Sasaki discloses the organic particles of the particulate polymer preferably have a volume-average diameter of 0.3 μm or more and 10 µm or less (see paragraph [0058]).
Sasaki additionally discloses if the volume average diameter is at least the lower limit value, it is possible to increase adhesion of the functional layer, as well as to suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer and if the volume average diameter is no greater than the lower upper limit value, it is possible to improve low-temperature output characteristics, as well as to increase adhesion between the electrode and separator bonded together with the functional layer (see paragraph [0058]). As such, the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
So, the ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer (as disclosed by Sasaki) relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer (as disclosed by Tanaka) may range from 0.1 to 3.33, which overlaps and renders obvious the range of a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer of not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0. In optimizing the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer, a skilled artisan would further optimize the aforementioned ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer is not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0, as disclosed by Sasaki, in order to achieve a functional layer with increased adhesion, suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer, and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above). Tanaka further discloses using an acrylonitrile polymer in the particulate polymer (see paragraphs [0176]-[0178] and Table 1 Example 7). This is an organic fine particle disclosed in the instant application as an appropriate organic fine particle (see paragraphs [0108]-[0109] of published instant application) and as such meets the criteria for the organic fine particle glass transition temperature and melting point.
Tanaka is silent on as the organic fine particles that having a volume-average particle diameter that is not less than 50% and not more than 150% of the volume-average particle diameter.
However, Sasaki discloses the organic particles preferably have a volume-average diameter of 0.3 μm or more and 10 µm or less (see paragraph [0058]). Sasaki additionally discloses if the volume average diameter is at least the lower limit value, it is possible to increase adhesion of the functional layer, as well as to suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer and if the volume average diameter is no greater than the lower upper limit value, it is possible to improve low-temperature output characteristics, as well as to increase adhesion between the electrode and separator bonded together with the functional layer (see paragraph [0058]). As such, the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the volume average diameter of the various organic particles, which would result in optimizing the relationship between the various organic particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka to include, as the heat-resistant fine particles, organic fine particles that have a volume-average particle diameter that is not less than 50% and not more than 150% of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer, as disclosed by Sasaki, in order to achieve a functional layer with increased adhesion, suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer, and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above). Tanaka further discloses using an acrylonitrile polymer in the particulate polymer in an amount of 30 parts by mass (see paragraphs [0176]-[0178] and Table 1 Example 7). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of an amount of the organic fine particles is not less than 20 parts by mass and not more than 1,000 parts by mass relative to the particulate polymer.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Tanaka discloses the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above). Tanaka further discloses functional layer for an electrochemical device formed using the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to the aforementioned claim 12 (see abstract and paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Tanaka discloses the functional layer for an electrochemical device according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above). Tanaka further discloses the functional layer comprises organic fine particles (an acrylonitrile polymer, which is disclosed in the instant application as an appropriate organic fine particle (see paragraphs [0108]-[0109] of published instant application)) serving as the heat-resistant fine particles (and as such can be viewed as a heat-resistant fine particle layer) and the particulate polymer (i.e., the particulate polymer is partially embedded in the heat-resistant fine particle layer) (see paragraphs [0176]-[00178] and Table 1 Example 7). Tanaka also discloses the thickness of the functional layer may be 3 μm or less (see paragraph [0106]).
Tanaka is silent on a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer being not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0.
However, Sasaki discloses the organic particles of the particulate polymer preferably have a volume-average diameter of 0.3 μm or more and 10 µm or less (see paragraph [0058]).
Sasaki additionally discloses if the volume average diameter is at least the lower limit value, it is possible to increase adhesion of the functional layer, as well as to suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer and if the volume average diameter is no greater than the lower upper limit value, it is possible to improve low-temperature output characteristics, as well as to increase adhesion between the electrode and separator bonded together with the functional layer (see paragraph [0058]). As such, the volume average diameter of the particulate polymer is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
So, the ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer (as disclosed by Sasaki) relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer (as disclosed by Tanaka) may range from 0.1 to 3.33, which overlaps and renders obvious the range of a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer of not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0. In optimizing the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer, a skilled artisan would further optimize the aforementioned ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer relative to thickness of the heat-resistant fine particle layer is not less than 1.0 and not more than 5.0, as disclosed by Sasaki, in order to achieve a functional layer with increased adhesion, suppress rises in the internal resistance of the functional layer, and improve low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Tanaka discloses the functional layer for an electrochemical device according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). Tanaka further discloses a laminate for an electrochemical device comprising: a substrate; and a functional layer for an electrochemical device formed on the substrate, wherein the functional layer for an electrochemical device is the functional layer for an electrochemical device according to the aforementioned claim 10 (see paragraphs [0109]-[0112]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Tanaka discloses the laminate for an electrochemical device according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above). Tanaka further discloses an electrochemical device comprising the laminate for an electrochemical device according to the aforementioned claim 16 (see paragraphs [0109]-[0112] and [0117]-[0119]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Sasaki, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin-Martinez, Rubber base adhesives, 2002, Adhesion Science and Engineering, Volume 2, Pages 615-616 (hereinafter “Martin-Martinez”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Tanaka discloses composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Tanaka is silent on wherein the polymer A has an acid value of not less than 0.5 mg KOH/g and not more than 7 mg KOH/g.
However, in the same field of endeavor of acid values, Martin-Martinez discloses the acid value (acid number) allows control of the deterioration by oxidation with formation of carbonyl and carboxyl groups (see pages 615-616 Section 4.2.3.5). As such, the acid value is viewed as a result effective variable, and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer disclosed by Tanaka wherein the polymer A has an acid value of not less than 0.5 mg KOH/g and not more than 7 mg KOH/g, as disclosed by Martin-Martinez, in order to control of the deterioration by oxidation with formation of carbonyl and carboxyl groups.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729