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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
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.
Claims 1-20 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. Claim 1 recites “a polyarylene sulfide” in lines 6-7, then “polyarylene sulfides” in the last line. Claims 3 and 9 repeat the latter term. It is confusing whether these terms refer to the same component in the polymer composition. Similarly, claim 1 recites “a bifunctional polymer” in line 7, while claim 9 “bifunctional polymers”. For examination purposes, the same polyarylene sulfide and same bifunctional polymer are considered, respectively.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on the indefinite claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites the limitation "the copolymer" in the first two fines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term is considered to refer to the bifunctional polymer.
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, 3-11, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-218244 to Yabushita et al. (machine translation provided for citation), in view of EP 0890616 to Suzuki et al. (cited and by Applicant).
Regarding clam 1, Yabushita et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrochemical battery comprising:
a housing or battery can 1 containing an interior space extending to an open end;
a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and electrolyte disposed within the interior space of the housing; and
a sealing member or annular gasket 6 disposed adjacent to the open end of the housing, wherein the sealing member comprises a polymer composition that contains a polyarylene sulfide (Figs. 1 and 2; [0018-20]; [0023]).
Yabushita et al. does not expressly teach that the polymer composition contains a bifunctional polymer that contains an epoxide functional group and a (meth)acrylate functional group, wherein the polymer composition has an epoxy content of from about 0.3 to about 2 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyarylene sulfide in the polymer composition.
Suzuki et al. also relates to a resin composition (polymer composition) that contains a polyarylene sulfide (a) and teaches that the resin composition further comprises a polyolefin (b) and an epoxy group-containing alpha-olefin copolymer (c), wherein the poly(arylene sulfide) (a), the polyolefin (b), and the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) are compounded in proportions of 98 to 50 mass%, 1 to 25 mass% and 1 to 25 mass%, respectively (abstract). The epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) includes recurring units of α-olefin and recurring units of a glycidyl group-containing unsaturated monomer such as glycidyl acrylate or glycidyl methacrylate (Page 5, lines 27-49). Thus, the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) corresponds to the claimed bifunctional polymer that contains an epoxide functional group and a (meth)acrylate functional group. Suzuki et al. further teaches that the content of glycidyl group-containing unsaturated monomer units in the copolymer (c) is generally 0.5 to 50 mass%, preferably 1 to 40 mass%, more preferably 2 to 30 mass% (Page 5, lines 35-42). This suggests an epoxy content falling within or overlapping with the claimed range. For example, when the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) is 2 mass% relative to 100 mass% of the poly(arylene sulfide) (a) and the content of glycidyl group-containing unsaturated monomer units in the copolymer (c) is 20 mass%, the epoxy content is 0.4 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the poly(arylene sulfide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer composition of Suzuki et al. in the sealing member of Yabushita et al., because Suzuki et al. teaches that the resin composition, which contains both the claimed polyarylene sulfide and bifunctional polymer, has excellent impact resistance and moldability (abstract; from page 2, line 51 to page 3, line 19) and the skilled artisan would have appreciated these properties in the sealing member of the prior art battery as excellent impact resistance helps absorb mechanical shocks, vibrations, and sudden physical trauma without losing the seal and moldability enables flexible designs and manufacturing efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. teaches that the polyarylene sulfide constitutes from 98 to 50 mass% of the polymer composition (abstract; page 7, lines 48-52).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Suzuki et al. teaches that the polyarylene sulfide is, for example, a linear polyphenylene sulfide (page 3, lines 25-41).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. teaches that the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c), corresponding to the claimed bifunctional polymer, contains a monomeric unit derived from an epoxy-functional (meth)acrylate, e.g. glycidyl acrylate or glycidyl methacrylate (Page 5, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. teaches that the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) further includes a monomeric component derived from an α-olefin (Page 5, lines 27-34).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al. teaches that examples of the copolymer (c) include ethylene/ethyl acrylate/glycidyl methacrylate copolymers (page 5, lines 53-58), which includes a monomeric unit derived from a (meth)acrylate that is not epoxy-functional.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. teaches that the poly(arylene sulfide) (a), the polyolefin (b), and the epoxy group-containing α-olefin copolymer (c) are compounded in proportions of 98 to 50 mass%, 1 to 25 mass% and 1 to 25 mass%, respectively (abstract). The prior art ratio between the copolymer (c) or bifunctional polymer and the polyarylene sulfide (a) falls within or overlaps with the clamed range.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Suzuki et al. teaches that fibers and mineral fillers may be 0 part by mass in the resin composition (page 8, lines 44-53). The prior art composition is thus generally free of reinforcing fibers and mineral fillers.
Regarding claim 14, Yabushita et al. teaches that the electrolytes includes LiClO4 (a lithium salt) dissolved in a nonaqueous organic solvent ([0025]).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Yabushita et al. teaches that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material and the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material of metallic lithium or a lithium alloy ([0020]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Yabushita et al. teaches a cover that is disposed over the housing (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Yabushita et al. teaches that the cover contains the sealing member or gasket 6 positioned between the housing and the cover (Figs. 1 and 2; [0019]; [0023]).
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabushita et al. and Suzuki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0031879 to Ding et al. (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. does not expressly teach that the polymer composition exhibits the claimed ranges of notched Charpy impact strength, tensile modulus, or melt viscosity.
Ding et al. also relates to a polymer composition that contains a polyarylene sulfide and an epoxy-functionalized copolymer and teaches that the polymer composition has a melt viscosity of about 5,000 poise or less (abstract; [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed property, because Ding et al. demonstrates that the polyarylene sulfide composition having the relative low melt viscosity allows it to readily flow during production of a part ([0041]) and enables relatively high molecular weight polyarylene sulfides to be fed to an extruder with little difficulty ([0042]), which facilitates handling of the polymer composition in making a product such as the sealing member.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Suzuki et al. does not expressly teach the claimed epoxy resin.
Ding et al. also relates to a polymer composition that contains a polyarylene sulfide and an epoxy-functionalized copolymer and teaches that the polymer composition further comprises an epoxy resin having an epoxy equivalent weight of from about 250 to about 1,500 grams per gram equivalent as determined in accordance with ASTM D1652-11e1 (abstract; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the epoxy resin in the prior art polymer composition, because Ding et al. teaches that the epoxy resin is selected to have a certain controlled epoxy equivalent weight, which can allow it undergo a crosslinking reaction with the epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer, thus improving compatibility of the components and increasing the mechanical properties of the resulting composition ([0006]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using adding a known element to a known composition.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabushita et al. and Suzuki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of 5,707,756 to Inoue et al.
Regarding claim 16, Yabushita et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material includes manganese dioxide ([0025]), but does not expressly teach a lithium-containing metal oxide.
Inoue et al. also relates to a nonaqueous secondary battery and teaches that the positive electrode active material includes manganese dioxide or transition metal oxides containing lithium (abstract; Figs. 1 and 3; from column 15, line 49 to column 17, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed positive electrode active material in the prior art battery, because Inoue et al. demonstrates that a lithium-containing metal oxide is a known positive electrode active material (from column 15, line 49 to column 17, line 5). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known material in a similar product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
