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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received June 4, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2 are amended; and claims 7-8 are new; resulting in claims 1-8 pending for examination.
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation in line 3 reciting that the ratio of the core portion to the shell portion in the particulate polymer, by mass, “is within a range of 95.5:0.1 to 60:40” is indefinite as the initial range does not add up to 100. It is not clear if the first range includes 95% core polymer by mass, 95.5% core polymer by mass, or 99.9% core polymer by mass based on the remaining 0.1% shell polymer. In looking to the specification, paragraph [0049] discloses that the ratio of the core portion to the shell portion by mass is preferably 99.9:0.1 to 50:50, which is included in claim 1, and even more preferably within a range of 95:5 to 60:40. Based on the amendment to claim 1 to include the broader range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50 and the disclosure of a preferred range of 95:5 to 60:40, it seems the limitation in claim 2 is intended to limit the ratio to 95:5 to 60:40. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as including a ratio of the core portion to the shell portion in the particulate polymer, by mass, “is within a range of 95:5 to 60:40.”
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakizaka, et al. (WO 2019/039357 A1) (hereinafter citing US equivalent US 2020/0331234 A1), in view of Keitaro, et al. (JP 2016-72247 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wakizaka teaches a functional layer of a laminate for a secondary battery containing a binder, organic particles (particulate polymer), and non-conductive particles (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-4), further teaching that inorganic fine particles (heat-resistant fine particles) are normally used for the non-conductive particles (¶ [0149], Ln. 1-5). The organic particles are formed by polymer and preferably have a core-shell structure (¶ [0097], Ln. 1-7). Wakizaka teaches that the shell portion partially covers the outer surface of the core portion (¶ [0099], Ln. 5-7). The polymer that forms the core portion (polymer A) has a preferable glass-transition temperature of 55-90 °C, meeting the limitation of 20 °C or higher (¶ [0119], Ln. 1-9). The polymer that forms the shell portion (polymer B) has a preferable glass-transition temperature of 80-150 °C, meeting the limitation of 70 °C or higher (¶ [0131], Ln. 1-3). In looking to the examples for the ratio of core portion to shell portion, Wakizaka teaches examples wherein the functional layer includes core-shell organic particles in Example 2 and Example 3. In both examples, the ratio of core portion to shell portion by mass is 80:20, within the claimed range of 99.9:0.1 to 50:50 (Table 1). Wakizaka teaches that the volume-average particle diameter of the organic particles is 0.1-1 µm, overlapping the claimed range of 1.0-10.0 µm (¶ [0143], Ln. 1-5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Wakizaka does not expressly teach the degree of swelling of the core polymer or shell polymer, and therefore does not expressly teach that the degree of swelling of the core polymer is 1-8 in an electrolyte solution and the degree of swelling of the shell polymer is 4 or more in the electrolyte solution.
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 organic particles of Wakizaka 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, Wakizaka in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a ratio of core portion to shell portion by mass of 80:20, within the claimed range of 95:5 to 60:40 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wakizaka in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wakizaka further teaches that the polymer that forms the shell portion preferably includes an aromatic monovinyl monomer unit (¶ [0122], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wakizaka in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wakizaka further teaches that the functional layer meeting the limitations of claim 1 above is formed on a substrate to produce a laminate for a non-aqueous secondary battery (electrochemical device) (¶ [0170], Ln. 1-6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakizaka, et al. (WO 2019/039357 A1) (hereinafter citing US equivalent US 20200331234 A1), in view of Keitaro, et al. (JP 2016-72247 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan (EP 3 758 097 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wakizaka in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of references does not expressly teach that the organic particles have a particle diameter distribution of 1.5 or less.
Fan teaches a lithium-ion battery including a separator (¶ [0029], Ln. 1). The separator includes a porous substrate and a first coating arranged on the porous substrate (¶ [0018], Ln. 1-3), creating a laminate. The first coating includes a first polymer binder and first inorganic particles, and the first polymer binder is composed of core-shell particles (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-2). 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 (¶ [0026]. Ln. 1-4; formula (I)). 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 organic particles of Wakizaka in view of Keitaro to have a particle diameter distribution of 1.5 or less, based on the teachings of Fan that the core-shell structure improves the uniformity of the particles of the polymer binder. Based on this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include organic 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakizaka, et al. (WO 2019/039357 A1) (hereinafter citing US equivalent US 20200331234 A1), in view of Keitaro, et al. (JP 2016-72247 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suminosuke, et al. (JP 2015088253).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wakizaka in view of Keitaro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a polymer that forms the shell portion (polymer B) with a glass-transition temperature of 80-150 °C (¶ [0131], Ln. 1-3). Wakizaka further teaches that the polymer that forms the shell portion preferably includes an aromatic monovinyl monomer unit (¶ [0122], Ln. 1-3). The combination of references does not expressly teach that the shell polymer includes both an aromatic vinyl monomer unit at a content of 30% by mass or more and a nitrile group-containing monomer unit at a content of 20% by mass or more.
Suminosuke teaches an adhesive for a lithium-ion secondary battery including a particulate polymer having a core-shell structure (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-3). The shell polymer has a glass transition temperature of 70-150 °C (¶ [0067], Ln. 1-3) and preferably contains an aromatic vinyl monomer (¶ [0060], Ln. 1). In Example 10, Suminosuke teaches that the shell portion includes 10 parts styrene and 9.5 parts acrylonitrile, resulting in a polymer with a glass transition temperature of 101 °C (¶ [0243], Ln. 1-3; Table 2).
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 shell polymer of Wakizaka in view of Keitaro to include styrene and acrylonitrile based on the teachings of Suminosuke. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the similarities between the shell polymer of Wakizaka and Suminosuke and find it obvious to apply the teachings of Suminosuke to the shell polymer. Specifically, as both references teach a shell polymer including an aromatic vinyl monomer unit and having a glass transition temperature of approximately 80-150 °C, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the shell polymer composition of Suminosuke to the organic particles of Wakizaka, such as a shell polymer including 10 parts styrene and 9.5 parts acrylonitrile. Thus, the resulting shell polymer would include more than 30% aromatic vinyl monomer unit and more than 20% nitrile group-containing monomer unit by mass.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 in the claim set filed June 4, 2026, the previous objections to claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the claim set filed June 4, 2026, the previous rejections of claim 1, and by dependency claims 2-6, 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 are withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 with respect to new claim 7 regarding advantageous effects of including both an aromatic vinyl monomer unit and a nitrile group-containing monomer unit have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that when polymer B includes both an aromatic vinyl monomer unit and a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, advantageous effects are achieved, however, the disclosure in paragraph [0036] states that the wet adhesiveness of the functional layer is increased when polymer B includes either or both of an aromatic vinyl monomer unit and a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, indicating that only one of the monomers is needed to achieve the effects. In the event that the Applicant intends to present a showing of unexpected results, a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting Applicant’s position is necessary (MPEP 716.02(b)).
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 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.
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
Prosecution Insights