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 .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second polyvinylpyrrolidone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an aversive agent” in line 10, however in the same claim in line 7 “an aversive agent” has already been recited. This is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if there is one or two aversive agents, nor would they be able to determine if the aversive agents are different or the same.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 16.
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 1-4, 7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220127488-A1 (K) in view of US-20190058182-A1 (P).
Regarding claim 1, K teaches coating composition comprising two water soluble layers (30, 40) [0013]. K teaches one water-soluble resin comprises an aversive agent, PAA, and PVOH [0013]. K teaches the PAA can comprise an acrylic acid comprising C1-24 alkyl methacrylate [0041]. K teaches the polymer blend can further comprise more than one water-soluble polymer selected from a list containing polyvinylpyrrolidone [0042]. Additionally, K teaches the coating composition can contain cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone [0063]. K teaches an example where the coating is used as a safety coating on a coin battery cell [0143].
K is silent to the specifics of the battery.
P teaches a battery (50) comprising: a housing comprising a cathode cup (54) corresponding to a positive battery terminal [0044] and an anode lid (58) corresponding to a negative battery terminal [0044]; a cathode (52) and an anode (56) disposed within the housing; an insulating gasket (62) disposed between the cathode cup and the anode lid, the insulating gasket sealing the housing and electronically insulating the cathode cup from the anode lid [0044]; and a water-responsive safety feature (64) comprising a polymer blend and an aversive agent [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use a battery structured like that of P as the coin battery for the coating of K because P already teaches a safety coating and a coin cell. Doing so would amount to no more than electing a known design for a coin cell with a safety layer for use with a different safety layer composition in a case where no specific coin cell is given with the safety layer.
Claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of K and P.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, K teaches the PAA can comprise methyl methacrylate [0041]. This appears in the lists of options for monomers in both claims 2 and claim 3 so it teaches the recited limitations for the alky acrylate of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, K teaches the PAA comprises methacrylic acid containing polymers [0041] “methacrylic acid and ring opening polymerization”, “methacrylic acid hydroxyl group-containing monomers”.
Regarding claim 7, neither K nor P teach a second PVP compound with a known solubility.
K teaches there may be more than one PVOH copolymers [0031]. K teaches that the solubility of the polymer mixture should be optimized to provide a mixture that is easy to apply while still drying in a reasonable amount of time [0043].
P teaches the water responsive layer (64) can be formed from polymers in a list containing both PVP and PVOH [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to substitute each of the more than one PVOH copolymers of K with the PVP of P because these are known equivalents in the field of soluble polymers for battery safety features, as evidenced by P.
After this substitution has been completed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the solubility of the more than one PVP copolymers in order to achieve favorable application and drying times for the coating layer. In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of arriving at a selection of two PVP copolymers where one has a higher solubility than the other as a matter of routine optimization.
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over K and P.
Regarding claim 9, K teaches the aversive agent includes bitterants [0048].
Regarding claim 10, K teaches the bitterant is denatonium saccharide [0049].
Regarding claim 11, K teaches the PVOH is present in a concentration of greater than 1% [0023]. In the process of substitution of the PVOH for PVP, this concentration would be maintained because the modification only involved the substitution of one component for the other.
Regarding claim 12, K teaches the PAA is present in a concentration greater than 1% [0023].
Regarding claim 13, K does not teach a concentration of the second PVP. K does teach the ratio of the PVP to PAA is between 80:20 to 20:80 by weight [0023]. K teaches the molecular weight and viscosity have a strong relationship [0029]. Both bounds of these ratios enable the second PVP to be present in the mixture at a concentration of 10%. In the routine optimization of the ease of application and drying times for the coating layer described in the rejection of claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a concentration of the second PVP of greater than 10% by weight because such a value falls in the ranges of K and K teaches a motivation to optimize this in order to achieve a favorable balance between ease of application and drying times.
Regarding claim 14, K teaches the coating comprises a colorant [0053].
Regarding claim 15, the battery of P is a coin cell [0013].
Regarding claim 16, K teaches coating composition comprising two water soluble layers (30, 40) [0013]. K teaches one water-soluble resin comprises an aversive agent, PAA, and PVOH [0013]. K teaches the PAA can comprise an acrylic acid comprising C1-24 alkyl methacrylate [0041]. K teaches the polymer blend can further comprise more than one water-soluble polymer selected from a list containing polyvinylpyrrolidone [0042]. Additionally, K teaches the coating composition can contain cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone [0063]. K teaches an example where the coating is used as a safety coating on a coin battery cell [0143].
K is silent to the specifics of the battery.
P teaches a battery (50) comprising: a housing comprising a cathode cup (54) corresponding to a positive battery terminal [0044] and an anode lid (58) corresponding to a negative battery terminal [0044]; a cathode (52) and an anode (56) disposed within the housing; an insulating gasket (62) disposed between the cathode cup and the anode lid, the insulating gasket sealing the housing and electronically insulating the cathode cup from the anode lid [0044]; and a water-responsive safety feature (64) comprising a polymer blend and an aversive agent [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use a battery structured like that of P as the coin battery for the coating of K because P already teaches a safety coating and a coin cell. Doing so would amount to no more than electing a known design for a coin cell with a safety layer for use with a different safety layer composition in a case where no specific coin cell is given with the safety layer.
As is noted in the Written Opinion of the ISR, hydrolytically stable and high-water solubility are terms that can be attributed to all water soluble polymers.
The PAA of K serves as the hydrolytically stable polymer. The PVOH of K serves as the first highly water-soluble polymer.
Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over K and P.
Regarding claim 18, K teaches the first highly water soluble polymer is PVOH [0013].
Regarding claim 19, K teaches the hydrolytically stable polymer is PAA (which is an acrylic).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220127488-A1 (K), US-20190058182-A1 (P), with reference to TDS 4072.
Regarding claim 5, K teaches the PAA has a weight average molecular weight of between 1000-300000 Da (equivalent to the same number of g/mol) [0039].
While the instant claims the molecular weight of its alkyl acrylate containing polymer as a number average molecular weight, one of the materials listed in [0023] as an option for the polymer is ELVACITE 4072, which has a Mw of 105000 g/mol (TDS 4072).
This value is encompassed in the range of K, showing that the ranges of K and the instant overlap.
K further teaches the molecular weight influences the stringiness during application and adhesion [0040].
Therefore, in the process of optimization of the stringiness and adhesion of the polymer blend, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a value for the molecular weight of the PAA that falls within the claimed range of the instant claim 5.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220127488-A1 (K), US-20190058182-A1 (P), with reference to TDS Sokalan.
Regarding claim 6, K is silent to the number average molecular weight of the PVP.
P teaches the water responsive layer (64) can be formed from polymers in a list containing both PVP and PVOH [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to substitute the PVOH of K with the PVP of P because these are known equivalents in the field of soluble polymers for battery safety features, as evidenced by P.
P teaches the weight average molecular weight of the polymer is between 1kD and 1000 kD (1-1000 kg/mol). P does not teach a number average molecular weight for the polymer, however the weight average molecular weight of Sokalan K 17 P is 9 kg/mol (TDS Sokalan). The instant teaches Sokalan K 17 P is an option for the first PVP [0019]. This means that, because 9 kg/mol falls inside the range of P, the ranges of P and the instant claim 6 must overlap. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding claim 8, P teaches a range of weight average molecular weights for PVP greater than 1 kD. The instant teaches an option for the second PVP is Sokalan K 90 P [0026], which has a weight average molecular weight of 1400 kD (TDS Sokalan). The ranges taught by the instant for the second PVP and P therefore overlap. In the process of routine optimization described in the rejection of claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore arrive at a number average molecular weight for the second PVP which falls within this overlapping region.
Claim 8 is therefore unpatentable over K and P.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20080171087-A1 (C).
Regarding claim 17, K and P teach water-soluble layers that contain colorants and aversive agents as explained in the rejection of claim 16. This means that they contain an active ingredient that is dispersed upon contact with water.
K and P are silent to the degree of polymerization of the PVP.
C teaches an elution layer for dispersing an active agent [0006]. C teaches an example where the elution layer comprises a mixture of PVP [0123]. The mixture specifically comprises 20 g/L of PVP K-90 and 40 g/L PVP K-30, both obtained from BASF [0123]. C teaches the benefit of this composition is more uniform coating coverage [0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to substitute the PVP of K with the PVP mixture of C in order to achieve the benefit of uniform coating. It would have been obvious to do because the coatings of K, P and C are all in the same field of water soluble coatings that are meant to deliver active ingredients upon contact with water, and because C teaches a clear benefit of improved uniformity of coating coverage.
The instant teaches that the first PVP compound may be PVP K-30 from BASF [0019]. Therefore, the PVP K-30 of C must have a degree of polymerization within the claimed range of the instant claim 17, rendering claim 17 unpatentable over the combination of K, P and C.
Regarding claim 20, the instant teaches PVP K-90 from BASF is an option for the second PVP [0026]. Therefore, the PVP K-90 from BASF of C must have a number average molecular weight of at least 50-fold higher than the PVP K-30 from BASF of C because the materials match the material options for the first and second PVP compounds of the instant. Therefore, claim 20 is unpatentable over K, P, and C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights