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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 5, 2023, October 11, 2023, and December 17, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations reciting “the polymer A has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution SA of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8, the polymer B has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution SB of a factor of 4 or more, the degree of swelling in electrolyte solution SA and the degree of swelling in electrolyte solution SB satisfy a relationship of SB/SA ≤ 1.2” in lines 7-12 is unclear as the variables SA and SB appear to refer to the electrolyte solution, such that there is an electrolyte solution SA and an electrolyte solution SB, rather than the degree of swelling for each polymer. In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0048] describes the limitation regarding the ratio of SB/SA, indicating that there is one electrolyte solution. Thus, it is clear that the variable S-A refers to the swelling degree of polymer A and the variable SB refers to the swelling degree of polymer B. For the purposes of clarity, it is recommended to amend the limitations to read “the polymer A has a degree of swelling SA in an electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8, the polymer B has a degree of swelling SB in the electrolyte solution of a factor of 4 or more, the degree of swelling SA in the electrolyte solution and the degree of swelling SB in the electrolyte solution satisfy a relationship of SB/SA ≤ 1.2” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation reciting “a ratio of the core portion and the shell portion in the particulate polymer, by mass, is within a range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50” in lines 2-3 is unclear as the word “the” appears to combine the mass of the core portion and the shell portion, rather than comparing them. In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0049] discloses that the ratio of the core portion and shell portion is “core portion:shell portion,” clarifying that the ratio is comparing the mass of the core to the mass of the shell, and not the combination of the two. For the purposes of clarity, it is recommended to amend the limitation to read “a ratio of the core portion to the shell portion in the particulate polymer, by mass, is within a range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50” in claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, and by dependency claims 2-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations specifying “the degree of swelling in electrolyte solution” in lines 7-12 are indefinite. As written, the swelling degree of polymer A and polymer B could be measured in any electrolyte solution, including two different electrolyte solutions. In that case, any electrolyte solution could be selected such that the swelling degree of the polymer representing polymer A is not less than 1 and not more than 8, and any electrolyte solution could be selected such that the swelling degree of the polymer representing polymer B is 4 or more. In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0048] describes the limitation regarding the ratio of SB/SA, indicating that there is one electrolyte solution. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the electrolyte solution referred to in lines 7-12 of claim 1 is interpreted to be one electrolyte solution. It is recommended to include articles before the references to the electrolyte solution, such that “the polymer A has a degree of swelling SA in an electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8, the polymer B has a degree of swelling SB in the electrolyte solution of a factor of 4 or more, the degree of swelling SA in the electrolyte solution and the degree of swelling SB in the electrolyte solution satisfy a relationship of SB/SA ≤ 1.2.”
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (EP 3 758 097 A1) in view of Keitaro, et al. (JP 2016-72247 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Fan teaches a lithium-ion battery (electrochemical device) including a separator (¶ [0029], Ln. 1). The separator includes a porous substrate (1) and a first coating (2; electrochemical device functional layer) arranged on the porous substrate (¶ [0018], Ln. 1-3), creating a laminate. The first coating includes a first polymer binder (3; particulate polymer) and first inorganic particles (4; heat-resistant fine particles), and the first polymer binder is composed of core-shell particles (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-2). Fan teaches that the first coating further includes an auxiliary binder (¶ [0024], Ln. 1). Fan teaches that the core of the first polymer binder is a polymer (polymer A) formed by polymerizing monomers selected from a group consisting of ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, styrene, chlorostyrene, fluorobenzene ethylene, methylstyrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, and any combination thereof (¶ [0020], Ln. 2-4), The shell of the first polymer binder is a polymer (polymer B) formed by polymerizing monomers selected from a group consisting of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylonitrile, methyl acrylonitrile, and any combination thereof (¶ [0020], Ln. 4-7). Due to the core-shell structure of the particles, the polymer comprising the shell at least partially covers the outer surface of the core. Fan teaches that by adopting the core-shell particle structure, during post-heating, the shell of the first polymer binder is softened first, and then the core of the first polymer binder may have bonding function (¶ [0020], Ln. 8-11).
Fan teaches that the Dv50 particle size of the first polymer binder is within 300-5000 nm, wherein Dv50 represents the particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis (volume-average particle diameter) (¶ [0026]. Ln. 1-4; formula (I)). Specifically, Fan teaches first coating preparations in Examples 3-7, including a first polymer binder with Dv50 particle diameters ranging from 1200-5000 nm (1.2-5 µm), within the claimed range of 1-10 µm (¶ [0064]-[0067]). In Examples 3-7, the first coating also includes: a first polymer binder with a core of polyethylene methacrylate and a shell of methyl methacrylate and methyl styrene; aluminum oxide particles as first organic particles; and polyacrylate as the auxiliary binder (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-5). Fan does not expressly teach the degree of swelling of the shell of the first polymer binder or of the core of the first polymer binder, and therefore does not expressly teach that the core polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than 1 and not more than 8, that shell polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of 4 or more, or that the ratio of the degree of swelling of the shell polymer to the degree of swelling of the core polymer is greater than or equal to 1.2.
Keitaro teaches a separator for an electricity storage device that can improve the adhesion between the separator and the electrodes while suppressing an increase in ionic resistance (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-3). Keitaro teaches a polymer layer disposed on the separator that functions as an adhesive layer (¶ [0075], Ln. 9). The polymer layer includes a thermoplastic polymer having a core-shell structure in which the polymer belonging to the central portion and the polymer belonging to the outer shell portion have different compositions (¶ [0090], Ln. 4-6). Keitaro teaches that the core-shell structure allows the adhesive layer to form into a network structure, rather than completely turning into a film, when the polymer adhesive layer comes into contact with electrolyte (¶ [0093], Ln. 1-4). Specifically, Keitaro teaches that the swelling degree on the shell side is high and the swelling degree on the core side is low (¶ [0093], Ln. 5-6). Keitaro teaches that this allows the polymer adhesive layer to form a network structure, as the polymer on the shell side can easily coat other thermoplastic polymers, forming a continuous layer, while the low swelling degree of the core side makes coating difficult (¶ [0093], Ln. 7-11). Keitaro teaches that the overall degree of swelling of the thermoplastic polymer is preferably 1 time or more and 5 times or less (¶ [0121], Ln. 8-10), additionally teaching that the degree of swelling can be adjusted by adjusting the amount of crosslinking agent added or the amount of monomer that easily swells in the electrolyte solution added (¶ [0093], Ln. 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first polymer binder of Fan such that the core-shell structure includes a core polymer with a low degree of swelling and a shell polymer with a high degree of swelling, while maintaining an overall swelling degree within 1-5 times, based on the teachings of Keitaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a core polymer with a low degree of swelling and a shell polymer with a high degree of swelling in order to form a network structure, such that the shell polymer forms a continuous layer. In adjusting the swelling degree of the core polymer and shell polymer in order to have a higher degree of swelling in the shell polymer while also maintaining an overall swelling degree within 1-5 times, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a swelling degree of 4 or more times for the shell polymer and 3 or less times for the core polymer, resulting in a ratio of the degree of swelling of the shell polymer to the degree of swelling of the core polymer of 1.3 or more.
Regarding claim 2, Fan in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Fan does not expressly teach that the ratio of the core portion to the shell portion in the first binder polymer, by mass, is within a range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50.
Keitaro teaches that the polymer of the shell of the thermoplastic polymer having a core-shell structure has a glass-transition temperature of less than 20 °C and the polymer of the core of the thermoplastic polymer having a core-shell structure has a glass-transition temperature of 20 °C or higher (¶ [0092], Ln. 8-13). Keitaro further teaches that the mixing ratio of polymer having a glass transition temperature of 20 °C or higher to the polymer having a glass transition temperature of less than 20 °C is preferably 60:40 to 90:10. Thus, Keitaro teaches that the mixing ratio of the core polymer to the shell polymer is 60:40 to 90:10. Keitaro teaches that by blending polymers with these glass transition temperatures, it is possible to achieve both excellent stickiness resistance and excellent coatability onto a substrate (¶ [0091], Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first polymer binder of Fan such that the core-shell structure includes a mixing ratio of core polymer to shell polymer of 60:40 to 90:10, based on the teachings of Keitaro. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the polymers within these ratios in order to achieve both excellent stickiness resistance and excellent coatability onto a substrate. Including the core polymer and shell polymer in a mixing ratio of 60:40 to 90:10 would result in a mass ratio of core portion to shell portion within the claimed range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50.
Regarding claim 3, Fan in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Fan further teaches that the shell of the first polymer binder is a polymer (polymer B) formed by polymerizing monomers selected from a group consisting of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylonitrile, methyl acrylonitrile, and any combination thereof (¶ [0020], Ln. 4-7), specifically teaching the use of methyl methacrylate and methyl styrene (aromatic vinyl monomer unit) in Examples 3-7 (¶ [0064]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Fan in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Fan further teaches that the core-shell particle structure improves the uniformity of the particles of the polymer binder (¶ [0020], Ln. 8-9). Fan specifically refers to Figure 3 to demonstrate the uniformity of the particle distribution of the first polymer binder (¶ [0091], Ln. 1-3). Fan does not expressly teach that the first polymer binder has as particle diameter distribution of 1.5 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the particle diameter distribution of the first polymer binder of Fan to have a particle diameter distribution of 1.5 or less, based on the teachings that the core-shell structure improves the uniformity of the particles of the polymer binder and that the particle distribution of the first polymer binder is uniform. Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include first polymer binder particles with uniform particle sizes, resulting in a particle diameter distribution close to 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to target a particle diameter distribution as close to 1 as possible, including distributions less than 1.5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785