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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is recited that a polymerization reaction is performed between polyacrylic acid and polyacrylamide to generate a copolymer. It is assumed by the examiner the monomers acrylic acid and acrylamide were intended in place of their polymer counterparts, as reacting terminated polymers as described in the specification is not possible without other reagents and techniques such as ATRP, RAFT, and the like that are not common in the state of the art, thus requiring elaboration (Hojun Lee, Figure 1., page 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida (WO 2022186257 A1). US 20240234959 A1 corresponds to the US National Stage of Machida ‘257, and is therefore a translation thereof. Citations below are made to US 2024/0234959.
Regarding claim 1, Machida teaches a separator for an electricity device (paragraph [0045]) comprising a layer (A) comprising a porous polyolefin substrate (paragraph [0048]-[0049]), and a layer (B) disposed on at least one surface of the layer (A) and comprising inorganic filler particles (paragraph [0089]) , an acrylic acid and acrylic ester derivative based water-insoluble binder polymer (paragraph [0105]), and a copolymer water-soluble binder polymer (paragraphs [0117-0119]). As the separator as a whole is defined as porous and having a desired air permeability, ranging from 30 – 500 seconds/100 cc (paragraph [0149]), and how layer B can be adjusted to change the air permeability (paragraph [0151]), so it must be that layer B is porous. The copolymer has a preferred weight average molecular weight of 50,000 and less than 400,000 g/mol (paragraph [0123]) and the weight ratio of inorganic particles to copolymer range of 1:33.3 to 0.1:99 (paragraphs [0104] and [0124]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 2, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches examples of an acrylic polymer binder based on an acrylic ester that may constitute the acrylic latex including, but are not limited to, (meth)acrylic alkyl esters such as methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, butyl methacrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate. These acrylic alkyl esters may be used singly or in combinations of two or more. (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches the water-soluble binder may contain PVA, polyacrylamide, poly(meth)acrylic acid, and the like, and the water-soluble binder may also be a copolymer of at least one selected from those described above (paragraphs [0117] - [0119]). It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of submission to use the respective monomers of PVA, poly(meth)acrylic acid, or polyacrylamide to generate a copolymer for use in a separator.
Regarding claim 5, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches the water-insoluble acrylic polymer has an average particle size of 150 nm (Examples 1-70).
Regarding claim 6, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches the coating layer is 80% to 99% of the mass of the layer (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches the water-insoluble acrylic polymer is in greater content than the water-soluble copolymer (paragraphs [0115] and [0124], Examples 1-70).
Regarding claim 8, Machida teaches the greater abundance on the water-insoluble acrylic polymer compared to the water-soluble copolymer of claim 7 and teaches the weight ratio range of 1:1.6 to 1:8 (paragraphs [0115] and [0124], Examples 1, 58-60). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 9, Machida teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 and teaches its use in an electricity storage device (paragraph [0193]) with a positive electrode (paragraph [0227]), a negative electrode (paragraph [0228]), and the separator layer between (paragraph [0230]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO2022240227A1). US20240145866A1 corresponds to the US National Stage of Kim ’227, and is therefore a translation thereof. Citations below are made to US20240145866A1.
Regarding claim 4, Machida teaches the use of polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, and polyvinyl alcohol in the water-soluble copolymer binder, but fails to teach an explicit ratio or general make of the copolymer.
Kim teaches a separator for a lithium-ion secondary battery, where the separator is made of a porous substrate and a coating layer deposited on one side of the substrate (Abstract). The coating layer is made of a polyacrylamide copolymer (paragraph [0032]), composed of acrylic acid and acrylamide monomers (paragraph [0049]) in a 1:99 to 99:1 molar ratio range, including 8:2 and 5:5 ratios (paragraph [0074]).
It would have prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Kim into Machida to set the molar ratio range of acrylic acid to acrylamide for the copolymer to obtain a separator coating layer having improved thermal resistance (paragraph [0074]). As well, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jow (US6939647A1).
Regarding claim 10, Machida teaches the electrochemical storage device of claim 9, and teaches the use of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate: dimethyl carbonate as a non-aqueous electrolyte in a 1:1:1 volume ratio. Machida fails to teach the 3:7 weight ratio of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate as the non-aqueous electrolyte.
Jow teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing lithium salt, trialkyl phosphites, at least 1 cyclic carbonate, and at least 1 linear carbonate for use in an electrochemical energy storage device (col 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 1-3; col 5, lines 37-45). Examples 9 and 10 explicitly teaches the 3:7 weight ration of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate.
It would have prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Jow into Machida to obtain a working battery with this specific electrolyte composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Young-bok Kim (US 20210280945 A1) recites a separator with a porous polymer substrate and an inorganic coating layer made of inorganic particle and binder resin.
Hong (US 20130224555 A1) recites a separator with a porous polymer substrate and coating that includes inorganic particles in a specific weight ratio.
Joo-Sung Lee (WO 2021020887A1) recites a separator with a porous polymer substrate and coating made up of an acrylic binder and copolymer binder that includes inorganic particles in a specific weight ratio.
Yung Bong Kim (US20190165349A1) recites a composite separator made of a porous substrate, coated with thermally curing slurry including inorganic particles, a first binder based on an acrylamide monomer and acyclic monomer, and a second binder based on polyvinyl alcohol.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights