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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted 07/20/2023 was received and is being examined on its merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 07/20/2023, 10/19/2023, and 08/07/2025 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu (U.S. 20190305279, presented in IDS submitted 08/07/2025) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2010270198, presented in IDS submitted 08/07/2025, English translation provided by applicant and used for reference herein).
With respect to claims 1-4, Takamatsu discloses a composition for an electrochemical device functional layer ([0003]) comprising a particulate polymer (organic particles; [0030]), a binder ([0081]), and heat-resistant fine particles (non-conductive particles; alumina; [0031]),
wherein the particulate polymer (organic particles) has a volume average particle diameter of 0.3 micrometers to 1.5 micrometers ([0040]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 1.0 micrometer or more and 10.0 micrometer or less,
the particulate polymer comprises an inner core portion and an outer shell portion (core-shell structure) ([0033]), and
a glass transition temperature TgA of the inner core portion and a glass transition temperature Tgc of the outer shell portion are each independently 30℃ to 200℃ ([0036]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of 30 °C or higher.
Takamatsu does not disclose an intermediate portion present between the inner core portion and the outer shell portion, that a glass transition temperature TgB of the intermediate portion is 10 °C or higher, or the glass transition temperature TgB is the lowest among the glass transition temperatures TgA,TgB, and Tgc.
Sato discloses a functional layer (epoxy resin) for adhesive and heat resistant properties for use within electronics ([0006]; [0052]) and teaches that the functional layer includes a core-shell particle with three layers: a core layer, an intermediate layer, and a shell layer ([0012]), wherein the core and shell layers have glass transition temperatures of 50℃ or higher, and the intermediate layer has a glass transition temperature of -30℃ or less ([0021]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 90℃ or lower (claim 2), thus overlapping the claimed range of TgA is higher than TgB by at least 5℃ (claim 3), and thus overlapping the claimed range TgC is 60℃ or higher and satisfying the following relationship: TgB + 5 ≤ TgC ≤ TgB + 200 (Claim 4). Sato further teaches that this lower glass transition temperature of the intermediate layer allows for an increase in peel strength ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include an intermediate layer with a lower glass transition temperature as taught by Sato to the particulate polymer disclosed by Takamatsu in order to increase the peel strength of the functional layer.
While Sato does not teach the glass transition temperature of the intermediate layer is in the claimed range of 10℃ or higher, Sato does satisfy the remaining glass transition temperature relationships between TgA, TgB, and TgC as limited by claims 2-4. Applicant is reminded that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). As the glass transition temperature is a result-effective variable, although the ranges are not taught, and the general conditions and relationships between the glass transition temperatures are known in the art by Sato, the ranges of the glass transition temperature of the intermediate layer (TgC) does not support the patentability of the functional layer.
With respect to claim 7, Takamatsu discloses a laminate (battery member) for an electrochemical device (battery) ([00149]), comprising: a substrate and an electrochemical device functional layer formed on the substrate ([0130]),
wherein the electrochemical device functional layer is formed using the composition for an electrochemical device functional layer according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Takamatsu discloses an electrochemical device (battery) comprising the laminate (battery member) for an electrochemical device according to claim 7 ([0149]; see above rejection of claim 7).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu in view of Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bardman (U.S. 20100010118, presented in IDS submitted 08/07/2025).
With respect to claims 5-6, modified Takamatsu discloses particulate polymer having an inner core portion, an intermediate portion, and a n outer shell portion (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the mass ratio between the portion.
Bardman discloses a particulate polymer (polymer particles) comprising an inner core portion (core), an intermediate portion (intermediate stage or tiecoat), and an outer shell portion (second shell) and teaches the mass (weight) ratio of the inner core portion to the intermediate portion is 1:0.5 to 1:10 ([0033]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 95:5 to 30:70 (claim 5), and a ratio of a total mass of the inner core portion and the intermediate portion to a mass of the outer shell portion (second shell) is 1:0.5 to 1:3 ([0033]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 99:1 to 50:50 (claim 6). Bardman further teaches these ratios allow for the formation of a film to be less dependent on the presence of an additional binder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the inner core portion, intermediate portion, and outer shell portion of the particulate particles disclosed by modified Takamatsu were in mass (weight) ratios taught by Bardman in order to allow for the formation of a film to be less dependent on the presence of an additional binder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727