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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (hereinafter “Toyoda”) (EP 2835844 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8-11, Toyoda teaches a secondary battery (electrochemical device) separator comprising an organic separator layer (separator substrate), a heat-durable layer (functional layer) formed adjacent to at least one surface of the organic separator layer, and an adhesive layer formed on the heat-durable layer (see paragraph 19). The organic separator layer may comprise a microporous membrane made of a resin such as a polyolefin resin (see paragraph 20). The heat-durable layer contains non-conductive particles and a binder (particulate-polymer) (see paragraph 24).
As a binder of the heat-durable layer, a hydrogenated product of a polymer obtained by polymerizing a conjugated diene monomer such as isoprene or 1,3-butadiene may be used (see paragraph 36). The binder polymer may further include, in addition to the conjugated diene monomer unit, a monomer that is copolymerizable with the conjugated diene. This copolymerizable monomer may comprise an aromatic vinyl monomer such as styrene (see paragraph 39). The binder may be provided in the form of particles having a volume average particle diameter D50 that is 0.01 to 0.7 µm (see paragraph 75). The glass transition temperature (Tg) of the binder may be -50 to 20°C (see paragraph 77). It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Although Toyoda does not explicitly teach a degree of swelling of the binder in electrolyte solution, it is noted that the composition and structure of the binder polymer is substantially identical to that of the instant particulate polymer as described in paragraphs 24, 27 and 37-39 of the instant specification. It has been held by the courts that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Toyoda teaches that the heat-durable layer may further contain, as an optional component, a viscosity modifier such as polyvinyl alcohol or polyethylene oxide (see paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 7, Toyoda teaches that as the non-conductive particles, inorganic oxides such as alumina (non-conductive heat-resistant particles) may be used (see paragraph 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights