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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches plasticized polyolefin compositions comprising one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], wherein typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, wherein the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], wherein the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], wherein propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], wherein propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], wherein the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], wherein a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], wherein Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], wherein Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], wherein tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], wherein the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], which reads on a binder composite, wherein the binder composite comprising the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 16% to 94.905% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and/or atactic polyolefin resin, a tackifier being 1% to 50% by mass, a toughener being 2% to 59.94% by mass, and a plasticizer being 0.1% to 60% by mass. The % by mass of the main resin is based on the calculations 40% * 40% / 100% = 16% and 99.9% * 95% / 100% = 94.905%. The % by mass of the toughener is based on the calculations 40% * 5% / 100% = 2% and 99.9% * 60% / 100% = 59.94%.
Yang does not teach does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following components based on a mass of the fiber composite: a main resin being 50% to 80% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer to be 70 wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene to be from 71.4% to 92.9% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer to be from 7.1% to 28.6% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer. The proposed modification would read on the binder composition comprising the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 50% to 65% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. These are based on the calculations 70% * 71.4% / 100% = 50%, 70% * 92.9% / 100% = 65%, 70% * 7.1% / 100% = 5%, and 70% * 28.6% / 100% = 20%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing strength, impact resistance, and stiffness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and for minimizing brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], that the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], that the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], that the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], that the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], that a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], that Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], that propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], and that the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], which means that the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer in wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, would have affected strength, impact resistance, stiffness, and brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Yang’s tackifiers to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s tackifiers to be from 5 weight % to 20 weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprising the following component based on a mass of the binder composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprising the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], and that the compositions may be used in adhesives [0221], which means that Yang’s tackifiers would have been beneficial for modifying tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and for improving suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers to be from 5 wt % to 10 wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprising the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], and that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, which means that the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that examples of useful tackifiers include aliphatic hydrocarbon resins and aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins [0216], and that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], which optionally reads on wherein the tackifier comprises petroleum tackifying resin as claimed.
Yang does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the tackifier comprises petroleum tackifying resin. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Yang’s tackifiers that are aliphatic hydrocarbon resins or aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and to optimize the amount of Yang’s tackifiers to be from 5 weight % to 20 weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on wherein the tackifier comprises petroleum tackifying resin as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that examples of useful tackifiers include aliphatic hydrocarbon resins and aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins [0216], that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], and that the compositions may be used in adhesives [0221], which means that Yang’s tackifiers that are aliphatic hydrocarbon resins or aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins would have been beneficial for modifying tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and for improving suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives.
Regarding claims 8-10, Yang teaches that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that in another embodiment, Component B comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate [0154], and that the blend comprising the non-functionalized plasticizers may further be combined with one or more of ethylene vinyl acetate, and copolymers of acrylic acid [0215], which optionally reads on wherein the toughener has a functional group that forms hydrogen bonds as claimed, wherein the functional group comprises a carboxyl functional group as claimed, wherein the toughener comprises one or more of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as claimed.
Yang does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the toughener has a functional group that forms hydrogen bonds, wherein the functional group comprises a carboxyl functional group, wherein the toughener comprises one or more of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer or an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer to be 70 wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene to be from 71.4% to 92.9% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component B that comprises Yang’s propylene copolymer, ethylene vinyl acetate, and copolymers of acrylic acid to be from 7.1% to 28.6% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer. The proposed modification would read on wherein the toughener has a functional group that forms hydrogen bonds as claimed, wherein the functional group comprises a carboxyl functional group as claimed, wherein the toughener comprises one or more of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing strength, impact resistance, and stiffness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and for minimizing brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], that the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], that the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], that the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], that the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], that a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], that Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that in another embodiment, Component B comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate [0154], that the blend comprising the non-functionalized plasticizers may further be combined with one or more of ethylene vinyl acetate, and copolymers of acrylic acid [0215], that propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], that propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], and that the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], which means that the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer in wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and the amount of Yang’s Component B that comprises Yang’s propylene copolymer, ethylene vinyl acetate, and copolymers of acrylic acid, in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, would have affected strength, impact resistance, stiffness, and brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that in another embodiment, Component B comprises polybutadiene or polyisoprene [0154], which optionally reads on wherein, the plasticizer comprises rubber, wherein the rubber comprises one or more selected from butadiene rubber, and isoprene rubber as claimed.
Yang does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the plasticizer comprises rubber, wherein the rubber comprises one or more selected from the claimed group. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer to be 70 wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene to be from 71.4% to 92.9% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component B that comprises Yang’s propylene copolymer and Yang’s polybutadiene or polyisoprene to be from 7.1% to 28.6% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer. The proposed modification would read on wherein, the plasticizer comprises rubber, wherein the rubber comprises one or more selected from butadiene rubber, and isoprene rubber as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing strength, impact resistance, and stiffness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and for minimizing brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], that the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], that the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], that the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], that the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], that a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], that Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that in another embodiment, Component B comprises polybutadiene or polyisoprene [0154], that propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], that propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], and that the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], which means that the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer in wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and the amount of Yang’s Component B that comprises Yang’s propylene copolymer and Yang’s polybutadiene or polyisoprene, in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, would have affected strength, impact resistance, stiffness, and brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches that in another embodiment, the blends of the polymers further comprise typical additives known in the art such as surfactants [0217], and that the additives may be present in the typically effective amounts well known in the art, such as 0.001 weight % to 10 weight % [0217], which optionally reads on wherein based on the mass of the binder composite, the binder composite further comprises a surfactant, the surfactant being 0.0001% to 10% by mass.
Yang does not teach a specific embodiment wherein based on the mass of the binder composite, the binder composite further comprises a surfactant, the surfactant being 1% to 5% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Yang’s surfactants to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s surfactants in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions to be from 1 weight % to 5 weight %. The proposed modification would read on wherein based on the mass of the binder composite, the binder composite further comprises a surfactant, the surfactant being 1% to 5% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that in another embodiment, the blends of the polymers further comprise typical additives known in the art such as surfactants [0217], and that the additives may be present in the typically effective amounts well known in the art, such as 0.001 weight % to 10 weight % [0217], which would have been beneficial for improving an ability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions to coat a substrate, which would have been desirable because Yang teaches that the composition may be used in adhesive [0221], which means that the amount of Yang’s surfactants in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions in weight % would have affected effectiveness at Yang’s surfactants at improving an ability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions to coat a substrate, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s surfactants in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions in weight % would have been beneficial for optimizing an ability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions to coat a substrate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0032513 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yang renders obvious the binder composite according to claim 6 as explained above. Yang teaches that examples of useful tackifiers include aliphatic hydrocarbon resins and aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins [0216], and that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216].
Yang does not teach that the petroleum tackifying resin satisfies at least one of the (I) and (II). However, Liu teaches a tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier that is present in an adhesive composition [0037]. Yang and Liu are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a binder composite comprising a tackifier. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Liu’s tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and to optimize the amount of Liu’s tackifying resin to be from 5 weight % to 20 weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on wherein the petroleum tackifying resin satisfies the following (I) the petroleum tackifying resin comprises C9 hydrocarbon tackifying resin as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that examples of useful tackifiers include aliphatic hydrocarbon resins and aromatic modified aliphatic hydrocarbon resins [0216], that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], and that the compositions may be used in adhesives [0221], and because Liu teaches that the tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier is beneficial for being useful in an adhesive composition [0037], which means that Liu’s tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier would have been beneficial for modifying tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and for improving suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that the amount of Liu’s tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that optimizing the amount of Liu’s tackifying resin that is a C9 hydrocarbon tackifier in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Becker et al. (US 2011/0003916 A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Yang renders obvious the binder composite according to claim 12 as explained above. Yang teaches that in another embodiment, the blends of the polymers further comprise typical additives known in the art such as waxes [0217], and that the additives may be present in the typically effective amounts well known in the art, such as 0.001 weight % to 10 weight % [0217].
Yang does not teach that the surfactant comprises one or more selected from the claimed group. However, Becker teaches polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes, wherein the waxes are further constituents [0153] in a hotmelt adhesive formulation [0149], wherein the adhesive comprises polyolefins [0149]. Yang and Becker are analogous because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a binder composite comprising a polyolefin and a wax. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Becker’s polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and to optimize the amount of Becker’s polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions to be from 1 weight % to 5 weight %. The proposed modification would read on wherein the surfactant comprises one or more selected from paraffin wax, polyethylene wax, and polypropylene wax as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that in another embodiment, the blends of the polymers further comprise typical additives known in the art such as waxes [0217], and that the additives may be present in the typically effective amounts well known in the art, such as 0.001 weight % to 10 weight % [0217], and because Becker teaches polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes, wherein the waxes are further constituents [0153] in a hotmelt adhesive formulation [0149], wherein the adhesive comprises polyolefins [0149], which would have been beneficial for modifying processability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, which means that the amount of Becker’s polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions in weight % would have affected processability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, which means that optimizing the amount of Becker’s polyolefin waxes based on polyethylene or polypropylene or paraffin waxes in Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions in weight % would have been beneficial for optimizing processability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Claims 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN 112740443 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Yang teaches plasticized polyolefin compositions comprising one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], wherein typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, wherein the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], wherein the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], wherein propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], wherein propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], wherein the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], wherein a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], wherein Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], wherein Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], wherein tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], wherein the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], wherein the blends of the polymers can be used as adhesives combined with tackifiers [0223], wherein the adhesives can be used in any adhesive application [0224], which reads on an adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive portion is made of a binder composite, wherein the binder composite comprises the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 16% to 94.905% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and/or atactic polyolefin resin, a tackifier being 1% to 50% by mass, a toughener being 2% to 59.94% by mass, and a plasticizer being 0.1% to 60% by mass. The % by mass of the main resin is based on the calculations 40% * 40% / 100% = 16% and 99.9% * 95% / 100% = 94.905%. The % by mass of the toughener is based on the calculations 40% * 5% / 100% = 2% and 99.9% * 60% / 100% = 59.94%.
Yang does not teach does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following components based on a mass of the fiber composite: a main resin being 50% to 80% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer to be 70 wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene to be from 71.4% to 92.9% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer to be from 7.1% to 28.6% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer. The proposed modification would read on the binder composition comprises the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 50% to 65% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. These are based on the calculations 70% * 71.4% / 100% = 50%, 70% * 92.9% / 100% = 65%, 70% * 7.1% / 100% = 5%, and 70% * 28.6% / 100% = 20%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing strength, impact resistance, and stiffness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and for minimizing brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], that the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], that the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], that the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], that the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], that a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], that Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], that propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], and that the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], which means that the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer in wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, would have affected strength, impact resistance, stiffness, and brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Yang’s tackifiers to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s tackifiers to be from 5 weight % to 20 weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the binder composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprising the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], and that the compositions may be used in adhesives [0221], which means that Yang’s tackifiers would have been beneficial for modifying tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and for improving suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers to be from 5 wt % to 10 wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], and that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, which means that the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. Yang and Shi are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of an adhesive portion disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive is made of a binder composition comprising a polyolefin resin.
Yang does not teach an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate, and a negative electrode plate, and the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on one side of the separator, wherein the adhesive portion is provided on a surface of the separator. However, Shi teaches a lithium-ion battery that is obtained by coating an adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the adhesive comprises a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016]. Yang and Shi are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of an adhesive portion disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive is made of a binder composition comprising a polyolefin resin. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain a lithium-ion battery by coating Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing, wherein the battery is an electrochemical device, as suggested by Shi. The proposed modification would read on an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate, and a negative electrode plate, and the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on one side of the separator, wherein the adhesive portion is made of the binder composite as claimed, wherein the adhesive portion is provided on a surface of the separator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an additional utility for Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Shi teaches that an adhesive comprising a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024] is beneficial for obtaining a lithium-ion battery by coating the adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016], and because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that the blends of the polymers can be used as adhesives combined with tackifiers [0223], and that the adhesives can be used in any adhesive application [0224].
Regarding claim 17, Yang does not teach that the separator comprises a substrate and an extension portion connected to an edge of the substrate, the extension portion extends beyond the negative electrode plate or the positive electrode plate, and the adhesive portion is connected between two adjacent extension portions. However, Shi teaches a lithium-ion battery that is obtained by coating an adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the separator is a microporous membrane [0082], wherein the separator comprises a substrate [0083], wherein the adhesive comprises a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain a lithium-ion battery by coating Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions on both sides of a separator that is microporous membrane and that comprise a substrate, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, such that the substrate extends beyond the electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing, wherein the battery is an electrochemical device, as suggested by Shi. The proposed modification would read on wherein the separator comprises a substrate and an extension portion connected to an edge of the substrate, the extension portion extends beyond the negative electrode plate or the positive electrode plate, and the adhesive portion is connected between two adjacent extension portions as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an additional utility for Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Shi teaches that an adhesive comprising a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024] is beneficial for obtaining a lithium-ion battery by coating the adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the separator is a microporous membrane [0082], wherein the separator comprises a substrate [0083], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016], and because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that the blends of the polymers can be used as adhesives combined with tackifiers [0223], and that the adhesives can be used in any adhesive application [0224].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN 112740443 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation).
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches plasticized polyolefin compositions comprising one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], wherein typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, wherein the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], wherein the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], wherein the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], wherein propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], wherein propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], wherein the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], wherein a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], wherein Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], wherein Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], wherein tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], wherein the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], wherein the blends of the polymers can be used as adhesives combined with tackifiers [0223], wherein the adhesives can be used in any adhesive application [0224], which reads on an adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive portion is made of a binder composite, wherein the binder composite comprises the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 16% to 94.905% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and/or atactic polyolefin resin, a tackifier being 1% to 50% by mass, a toughener being 2% to 59.94% by mass, and a plasticizer being 0.1% to 60% by mass. The % by mass of the main resin is based on the calculations 40% * 40% / 100% = 16% and 99.9% * 95% / 100% = 94.905%. The % by mass of the toughener is based on the calculations 40% * 5% / 100% = 2% and 99.9% * 60% / 100% = 59.94%.
Yang does not teach does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following components based on a mass of the fiber composite: a main resin being 50% to 80% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer to be 70 wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene to be from 71.4% to 92.9% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer to be from 7.1% to 28.6% by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer. The proposed modification would read on the binder composition comprises the following components based on a mass of the binder composite: a main resin being 50% to 65% by mass, wherein the main resin comprises isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, and a toughener being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. These are based on the calculations 70% * 71.4% / 100% = 50%, 70% * 92.9% / 100% = 65%, 70% * 7.1% / 100% = 5%, and 70% * 28.6% / 100% = 20%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing strength, impact resistance, and stiffness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and for minimizing brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], that the polyolefin is selected from polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene copolymers, and blends thereof [0113], that the homopolymer may be atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and blends thereof [0113], that the polymer blends include impact copolymers [0113], that the polyolefin may be an impact copolymer [0151], that a suitable impact copolymer comprises from 40% to 95% by weight Component A and from 5% to 60% by weight Component B based on the total weight of the impact copolymer [0154], that Component A comprises propylene homopolymer [0154], that Component B comprises propylene copolymer [0154], that propylene impact copolymers are commonly used in a variety of applications where strength and impact resistance are desired [0151], that propylene homopolymers alone are often unsuitable for such applications because they are too brittle and have low impact resistance, whereas propylene impact copolymers are specifically engineered for applications such as these [0151], and that the copolymer component has rubbery characteristics and provides the desired impact resistance, whereas the homopolymer component provides overall stiffness [0152], which means that the amount of Yang’s polyolefin that is Yang’s impact copolymer in wt %, based upon the weight of Yang’s polyolefin and Yang’s non-functionalized plasticizers, the amount of Yang’s Component A that is Yang’s propylene homopolymer that is Yang’s blend of atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and syndiotactic polypropylene in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, and the amount of Yang’s Component B that is Yang’s propylene copolymer in % by weight based on the total weight of Yang’s impact copolymer, would have affected strength, impact resistance, stiffness, and brittleness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Yang’s tackifiers to modify Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, and to optimize the amount of Yang’s tackifiers to be from 5 weight % to 20 weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the binder composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprising the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: a tackifier being 5% to 20% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that tackifiers may blended with the polymers and/or with blends of the polymers [0216], that the tackifier, if present, is typically present at about 1 weight % to about 50 weight %, based upon the weight of the blend [0216], and that the compositions may be used in adhesives [0221], which means that Yang’s tackifiers would have been beneficial for modifying tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and for improving suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s tackifiers in weight %, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing tackiness of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions and suitability of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions for use in adhesives.
Yang does not teach with sufficient specificity that the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers to be from 5 wt % to 10 wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. The proposed modification would read on the binder composite comprises the following component based on a mass of the fiber composite: as plasticizer being 5% to 10% by mass as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], and that typically, the polyolefin(s) are present in the compositions at from 40 wt % to 99.9 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers [0043], which means that the non-functionalized plasticizers are present in the compositions at from 0.1 wt % to 60 wt %, based upon the weight of the polyolefin and the non-functionalized plasticizers, which means that the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have affected an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, which means that optimizing the amount of Yang’s one or more non-functionalized plasticizers in wt, based upon the weight of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions, would have been beneficial for optimizing an extent of plasticization of Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions. Yang and Shi are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of an adhesive portion disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive is made of a binder composition comprising a polyolefin resin.
Yang does not teach an electric apparatus, comprising an electrochemical apparatus: wherein the electrochemical apparatus comprises: a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate, and a negative electrode plate, and the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on one side of the separator, wherein the adhesive portion is provided on a surface of the separator. However, Shi teaches an electronic device comprising a lithium-ion battery [0092], wherein the lithium-ion battery is obtained by coating an adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the adhesive comprises a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016]. Yang and Shi are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of an adhesive portion disposed on a substrate, wherein the adhesive is made of a binder composition comprising a polyolefin resin. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare an electronic device comprising a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery is obtained by coating Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing, wherein the battery is an electrochemical device, as suggested by Shi. The proposed modification would read on an electric apparatus, comprising an electrochemical apparatus, wherein the electrochemical apparatus comprises: a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate, and a negative electrode plate, and the adhesive portion, wherein the adhesive portion is disposed on one side of the separator, wherein the adhesive portion is made of the binder composite as claimed, wherein the adhesive portion is provided on a surface of the separator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an additional utility for Yang’s adhesives that are Yang’s plasticized polyolefin compositions because Shi teaches that an adhesive comprising a polymer formed by copolymerization of a first monomer that is a propylene monomer and a second monomer [0024] is beneficial for preparing an electronic device comprising a lithium-ion battery [0092], wherein the lithium-ion battery is obtained by coating the adhesive on both sides of a separator, stacking in sequence a positive electrode, the separator coated with the adhesive, and negative electrode so that the separator is in the middle of the positive and negative electrodes, winding up the electrode assembly, placing the electrode assembly in an outer packaging, injecting an electrolyte, and sealing [0208], wherein the battery is an electrochemical device [0016], and because Yang teaches that the plasticized polyolefin compositions comprise one or more polyolefins and one or more non-functionalized plasticizers [0019], that the blends of the polymers can be used as adhesives combined with tackifiers [0223], and that the adhesives can be used in any adhesive application [0224].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 15, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) renders obvious the binder composite according to claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN 112740443 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation) renders obvious the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, Yang et al. (US 2004/0106723 A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN 112740443 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation) renders obvious the electric apparatus according to claim 19 as explained above.
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 20, Yang does not teach that based on a mass of the main resin, a mass percentage of the isotactic polyolefin resin is 40% to 85%, a mass percentage of the syndiotactic polyolefin resin is 10% to 40%, and a mass percentage of the atactic polyolefin resin is 5% to 25%. Although Zhu et al. (CN 111002675 A, machine translation in English used for citation) teaches polypropylene that is composed of isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and atactic polypropylene in a mass ratio of (5-8):(1-4):1 [0016], wherein the polypropylene is present in a raw material for an intermediate film layer [0009], which reads on based on a mass of the main resin, a mass percentage of the isotactic polyolefin is 50% to 80%, a mass percentage of the syndiotactic polyolefin resin is 10% to 40%, and a mass percentage of the atactic polyolefin resin is 8% to 14%, Zhou does not teach or suggest any advantages to the polypropylene or using the polypropylene in the binder composite of claim 1, the electrochemical apparatus of claim 14, or the electric apparatus of claim 19. The % by mass is based on the calculations 5/(5+4+1)*100%=50%, 8/(8+1+1)*100%=80%, 1/(8+1+1)*100%=10%, 4/(5+4+1)*100%=40%, 1/(8+4+1)*100%=8%, and 1/(5+1+1)*100%=14%. Furthermore, the prior art of record do not teach or suggest using a main resin comprising isotactic polyolefin resin, syndiotactic polyolefin resin, and atactic polyolefin resin, wherein based on a mass of the main resin, a mass percentage of the isotactic polyolefin resin is 40% to 85%, a mass percentage of the syndiotactic polyolefin resin is 10% to 40%, and a mass percentage of the atactic polyolefin resin is 5% to 25%, in combination with the binder composition of claim 1, the electrochemical apparatus of claim 14, or the electric apparatus of claim 19.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights