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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-10 and 15-19) in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a significant burden on the office to search and examine each of the identified invention.
This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in MPEP 808.02, the Examiner establishes that there would be a serious burden if restriction is not required by explanation one of the following: a) separate classification thereof, b) a separate status in the art when they are classifiably together, or c) a different field of search. The Examiner has identified the groups with separate classifications (see previous office action where Group I is classified in H01M 50/449 and Group II is identified in H01M 50/403). In addition, the groups would require a different field of search. For example, a search for binder having a core structure and a shell structure may not uncover the method of making the binder involving mixing and stirring in a solvent, an emulsifier, and an initiator and subsequent treatment/heating, and therefore different search queries would have to be used. Therefore, the Examiner has demonstrated serious burden in compliance with MPEP 808.02 and MPEP 803 because there is at least a separate classification thereof, and a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandl et al., “Poly(meth)acrylate-PVDF core-shell particles from emulsion polymerization: preferential formation of the PVDF β crystal phase”, Polymer Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Volume 9, October 17, 2018, pp. 5359-5369.
Regarding claim 1, Brandl discloses a polymethacrylate-PVDF core-shell particle [binder] (abstract). The shell includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and the core includes poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(glycidyl methacrylate), or poly(methyl acrylate) [polyacrylate polymers] (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Brandl discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Brandl teaches a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl et al., “Poly(meth)acrylate-PVDF core-shell particles from emulsion polymerization: preferential formation of the PVDF β crystal phase”, Polymer Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Volume 9, October 17, 2018, pp. 5359-5369, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneda et al. (US 2017/0256800).
Regarding claim 2, Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Brandl does not explicitly disclose wherein the shell layer structure comprises a plurality of shells, the plurality of shells being spaced apart on the surface of the core layer structure.
Kaneda discloses a binder composition containing a first particulate polymer 100 having a core-shell structure including a core portion 110 and a shell portion 120 that partially covers an outer surface of the core portion (abstract). The core portion can include a copolymer of a methacrylic acid ester monomer unit ([0060]). The shell portion partially covers the outer surface of the core portion ([0048]) is preferably a plurality of shell portion structures ([0051], Fig 1). Kaneda teaches this allows for battery to have excellent characteristic and allows for excellent binding ([0050]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the core/shell structure where the shell partially covers the surface and includes a plurality of shell portion structures as taught by Kaneda with the core-shell particles of Brandl for the purpose of using the polymer in a battery having excellent characteristics and allowing for excellent binding.
Regarding claim 3, Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Brandl does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass ratio of the polyacrylate polymer to the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer is (2–100):1.
Kaneda discloses a binder composition containing a first particulate polymer 100 having a core-shell structure including a core portion 110 and a shell portion 120 that partially covers an outer surface of the core portion (abstract). The core portion can include a copolymer of a methacrylic acid ester monomer unit ([0060]). The mass portion of the shell [PVDF] is preferably between 3-35 mass% ([0020], [0096]). Within this range, the cycle characteristics can be improved and peel strength can be improved ([0020], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mass ratio of shell/PVDF to the core of Kaneda with the shell and core of Brandl for the purpose of using the polymer in a battery having excellent characteristics and improving peel strength. Further, as Kaneda teaches the mass portion of the shell affects the cycle characteristics and peel strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the mass ration of polyacrylate polymer to PVDF polymer (including within the range of (2-100):1) as taught by Kaneda with the shell and core of Brandl for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between a battery having excellent characteristics and improving peel strength.
Claim(s) 4 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl et al., “Poly(meth)acrylate-PVDF core-shell particles from emulsion polymerization: preferential formation of the PVDF β crystal phase”, Polymer Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Volume 9, October 17, 2018, pp. 5359-5369, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (CN 115295755, see English language equivalent US 2024/0047830).
Regarding claim 4, Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Brandl does not explicitly disclose wherein a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the binder is 0.5 μm–50 μm.
He discloses an electrochemical apparatus including a separator disposed between a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, wherein the separator includes a porous substrate layer and a first coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (abstract). The first coating layer comprises polymer particles ([0016]), wherein the polymer particles are a core-shell structure ([0019]). The shell includes at least one selecting from polymers polymerized from at least one selected from the group consisting of the following monomers: polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, polystyrene, polybutadiene, acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, and butyl acrylate ([0019]). The core includes at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylate and acrylate polymer [acrylate polymers]; and preferably includes at least one selecting from methyl acrylate and butyl acrylate ([0019]). He further teaches that the medium particle size of the polymer particles is 0.2 µm to 2 µm ([0017]). He further provides examples of 0.8 μm, 0.6 μm, 1 μm, and 2 μm ([0102], Table 3). He teaches that if the particles are too small, the particles are prone to agglomeration resulting in unstableness, and if too large, the layer is too thick resulting in increased overall volume and affecting [decreasing] its energy density ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the medium particle size within the range of 0.5 μm–2 μm (including 0.6 μm, 0.8 μm, 1 μm, and 2 μm) as taught by He with particle size of Brandl for the purpose of using the polymer in a battery, and being stable without increasing overall volume and affecting [decreasing] energy density.
Regarding claims 15-19, Brandl discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Brandl teaches the material is used in electrical and other high-tech applications (p. 5359, left column, Introduction), Brandl does not explicitly disclose the material used in (claim 15) a separator, (claim 16) an electrode assembly including the separator, (claim 17) a battery cell including the electrode assembly, (claim 18) a battery including the battery cell, and (claim 19) an electric apparatus including the battery.
He discloses an electrochemical apparatus including a separator disposed between a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, wherein the separator includes a porous substrate layer and a first coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (abstract). The first coating layer comprises polymer particles ([0016]), wherein the polymer particles are a core-shell structure ([0019]). The shell includes at least one selecting from polymers polymerized from at least one selected from the group consisting of the following monomers: polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, polystyrene, polybutadiene, acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, and butyl acrylate ([0019]). The core includes at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylate and acrylate polymer [acrylate polymers]; and preferably includes at least one selecting from methyl acrylate and butyl acrylate ([0019]). He further discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising an electrochemical apparatus such as a lithium-ion battery, comprising the electrode assembly including the separator comprising the binder (abstract, [0002]-[0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer material of Brandl in an electric apparatus, battery, electrode assembly, and separator as taught by He for the purpose of using the binder in a specific chemical device for a high-tech application.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl et al., “Poly(meth)acrylate-PVDF core-shell particles from emulsion polymerization: preferential formation of the PVDF β crystal phase”, Polymer Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Volume 9, October 17, 2018, pp. 5359-5369, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rohm (GB 918734).
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Brandl discloses the core of acrylate or acrylate polymer, Brandl does not explicitly disclose:
(claim 5) wherein constituent monomers of the polyacrylate polymer comprise a first polymeric flexible monomer, a second polymeric polar monomer, and a third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer;
(claim 7) wherein the first polymeric flexible monomer contains an ester bond in structure, the second polymeric polar monomer contains a cyano group in structure, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer contains an amide bond; or
(claim 8) wherein the first polymeric flexible monomer is an acrylate monomer, the second polymeric polar monomer is an acrylonitrile monomer, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer is an acrylamide monomer.
Rohm discloses a copolymer made from 15%-35% by weight nitrile of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid [second polar monomer/cyano group/acrylonitrile monomer], 1%-5% by weight of an amide of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid [third weight regulating monomer/amide bode/acrylamide monomer], and 86%-60% by weight of acrylic acid esters [first flexible monomer/ester bond/acrylate monomer] (P1/L20-32). The copolymer is resistance, and exhibits good mechanical stability (P1/L39-45). Across examples, Rohm teaches using acrylonitrile, acrylamide, methacrylamide, ethyl acrylate, propyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (P3/L125-P4/1, P4/L16-20, P4/L50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the copolymer having a nitrile of acrylic/methacrylic acid, an amide of acrylic/methacrylic acid, and acrylic acid esters as taught by Rohm with the acrylate polymer core of Brandl for the purpose of having a copolymer with resistance and exhibits good mechanical stability.
Regarding claim 6, modified Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rohm further teaches an overlapping range wherein a molar ratio of the first polymeric flexible monomer, the second polymeric polar monomer, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer is 1:(0.01–0.8):(0.01–0.15). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these ratios to obtain the benefits of a copolymer with resistance and exhibit good mechanical stability.
At high acrylic acid range
At low acrylic acid range
1st monomer
2nd monomer
3rd monomer
1st monomer
2nd monomer
3rd monomer
86
15
1
60
35
5
1
0.17
0.01
1.00
0.58
0.08
Regarding claim 9, modified Brandl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rohm teaches: using ethyl acrylate, propyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate as the acrylate monomer; using acrylonitrile as the acrylonitrile monomer; and using acrylamide or methacrylamide as the acrylamide monomer (P3/L125-P4/1, P4/L16-20, P4/L50-54).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 115295755, see English language equivalent US 2024/0047830).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses an electrochemical apparatus including a separator disposed between a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, wherein the separator includes a porous substrate layer and a first coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (abstract). The first coating layer comprises polymer particles ([0016]), wherein the polymer particles are a core-shell structure ([0019]).
The shell includes at least one selecting from polymers polymerized from at least one selected from the group consisting of the following monomers: polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, polystyrene, polybutadiene, acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, and butyl acrylate ([0019]). The core includes at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylate and acrylate polymer [acrylate polymers]; and preferably includes at least one selecting from methyl acrylate and butyl acrylate ([0019]).
He does not provide an example of the polymers used in the core or shell of a polymer particle. However, in an example, He discloses that the polymer particles of polyvinylidene fluoride is used with an auxiliary binder polyacrylic acid ([0101]). Therefore, He reasonably suggests using these polymer materials as the materials for the core and shell of the polymer particles because these polymers were used in an example together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these polymer materials [polyvinylidene fluoride and polyacrylic acid] as the materials of the polymer particles to obtain the benefits thereof. Further, mapping the polymers to the shell and core descriptions ([0019]), the shell includes polyvinylidene fluoride, and the core includes polyacrylic acid [acrylate polymer].
Regarding claim 4, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. He further teaches that the medium particle size of the polymer particles is 0.2 µm to 2 µm ([0017]). He further provides examples of 0.8 μm, 0.6 μm, 1 μm, and 2 μm ([0102], Table 3).
Regarding claim 10, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. He discloses the shell includes polyvinylidene fluoride ([0101]).
Regarding claims 15-19, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. He further discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising an electrochemical apparatus such as a lithium-ion battery, comprising the electrode assembly including the separator comprising the binder according to claim 1 (abstract, [0002]-[0003]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 115295755, see English language equivalent US 2024/0047830), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneda et al. (US 2017/0256800).
Regarding claim 2, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, He does not explicitly disclose wherein the shell layer structure comprises a plurality of shells, the plurality of shells being spaced apart on the surface of the core layer structure.
Kaneda discloses a binder composition containing a first particulate polymer 100 having a core-shell structure including a core portion 110 and a shell portion 120 that partially covers an outer surface of the core portion (abstract). The core portion can include a copolymer of a methacrylic acid ester monomer unit ([0060]). The shell portion partially covers the outer surface of the core portion ([0048]) is preferably a plurality of shell portion structures ([0051], Fig 1). Kaneda teaches this allows for battery to have excellent characteristic and allows for excellent binding ([0050]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the core/shell structure where the shell partially covers the surface and includes a plurality of shell portion structures as taught by Kaneda with the core-shell particles of He for the purpose of using the polymer in a battery having excellent characteristics and allowing for excellent binding.
Regarding claim 3, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, He does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass ratio of the polyacrylate polymer to the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer is (2–100):1.
Kaneda discloses a binder composition containing a first particulate polymer 100 having a core-shell structure including a core portion 110 and a shell portion 120 that partially covers an outer surface of the core portion (abstract). The core portion can include a copolymer of a methacrylic acid ester monomer unit ([0060]). The mass portion of the shell [PVDF] is preferably between 3-35 mass% ([0020], [0096]). Within this range, the cycle characteristics can be improved and peel strength can be improved ([0020], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mass ratio of shell/PVDF to the core of Kaneda with the shell and core of He for the purpose of using the polymer in a battery having excellent characteristics and improving peel strength. Further, as Kaneda teaches the mass portion of the shell affects the cycle characteristics and peel strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the mass ration of polyacrylate polymer to PVDF polymer (including within the range of (2-100):1) as taught by Kaneda with the shell and core of He for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between a battery having excellent characteristics and improving peel strength.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 115295755, see English language equivalent US 2024/0047830), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rohm (GB 918734).
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While He discloses the core of acrylate or acrylate polymer, He does not explicitly disclose:
(claim 5) wherein constituent monomers of the polyacrylate polymer comprise a first polymeric flexible monomer, a second polymeric polar monomer, and a third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer;
(claim 7) wherein the first polymeric flexible monomer contains an ester bond in structure, the second polymeric polar monomer contains a cyano group in structure, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer contains an amide bond; or
(claim 8) wherein the first polymeric flexible monomer is an acrylate monomer, the second polymeric polar monomer is an acrylonitrile monomer, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer is an acrylamide monomer.
Rohm discloses a copolymer made from 15%-35% by weight nitrile of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid [second polar monomer/cyano group/acrylonitrile monomer], 1%-5% by weight of an amide of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid [third weight regulating monomer/amide bode/acrylamide monomer], and 86%-60% by weight of acrylic acid esters [first flexible monomer/ester bond/acrylate monomer] (P1/L20-32). The copolymer is resistance, and exhibits good mechanical stability (P1/L39-45). Across examples, Rohm teaches using acrylonitrile, acrylamide, methacrylamide, ethyl acrylate, propyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (P3/L125-P4/1, P4/L16-20, P4/L50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the copolymer having a nitrile of acrylic/methacrylic acid, an amide of acrylic/methacrylic acid, and acrylic acid esters as taught by Rohm with the acrylate polymer core of He for the purpose of having a copolymer with resistance and exhibits good mechanical stability.
Regarding claim 6, modified He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rohm further teaches an overlapping range wherein a molar ratio of the first polymeric flexible monomer, the second polymeric polar monomer, and the third polymeric molecular weight regulating monomer is 1:(0.01–0.8):(0.01–0.15). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these ratios to obtain the benefits of a copolymer with resistance and exhibit good mechanical stability.
At high acrylic acid range
At low acrylic acid range
1st monomer
2nd monomer
3rd monomer
1st monomer
2nd monomer
3rd monomer
86
15
1
60
35
5
1
0.17
0.01
1.00
0.58
0.08
Regarding claim 9, modified He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rohm teaches: using ethyl acrylate, propyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate as the acrylate monomer; using acrylonitrile as the acrylonitrile monomer; and using acrylamide or methacrylamide as the acrylamide monomer (P3/L125-P4/1, P4/L16-20, P4/L50-54).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 15-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/610259 (reference application) [Published as PG-PUB US 2024/0218169]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the conflicting claims disclose a binder comprising a core comprising polyacrylate polymer, a shell layer comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (claims 1 and 15), a medium particle size Dv50 of 7-50 µm (claims 1 and 3), ratios of the polymers (claims 2 and 16), and the composition of the polyacrylate monomer and PVDF (claims 4-9 and 17), and applications of the binder (claims 10-14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 and 15-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,671,091. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims disclose a binder comprising a core comprising polyacrylate polymer, a shell layer comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (claim 1 and 15), a medium particle size Dv50 of 7-50 µm (claim 4), ratios of the polymers (claim 3), and the composition of the polyacrylate monomer and PVDF (claims 1 and 5-8), and applications of the binder (claim 9-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights