DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III (claims 13-14 and 16-29) in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Colaianna reference does not teach the secondary battery as required by the claim. This is not found persuasive because as applicant has cancelled the claims in the previously presented Group I, now the restriction requirement is only between the previously presented Group II and Group III. It is noted that the claims in Group II do not require the secondary battery, and therefore, the special technical feature remains the polymer itself and is taught by the Colaianna reference.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaianna (WO 2007/096347) in view of Isaka et al (WO 2022/181226, please refer to US 2023/0399432 for mapping).
Regarding claims 13-14, 16, 19, 21 and 23-27, Colaianna teaches a fluoropolymer comprising (page 5):
0.5 to 5 % of perfluoromethylvinylether (PMVE)
0.4-4.5 % of perfluoropropylvinylether (PPVE)
The remainder can be TFE which can be calculated to range from 99.1-90.5%
The melt flow index ranges from 1 to 60 g/10 min (page 6).
Colaianna teaches that the fluoropolymer is used as a coating for cables (page 9), however, it fails to teach the recited secondary battery comprising at least one insulating part made from the fluoropolymer.
Isaka teaches a fluoropolymer (Abstract) which can be used in coating cables ([0096]) and can be used as insulating or sealing members such as a gasket of a secondary lithium-ion batteries ([0117
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Colaianna for the insulating member of a secondary lithium-ion battery as taught by Isaka. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use a fluoropolymer which has good electrical insulation, good mechanical properties and high processing properties (Colaianna, page 4).
Regarding claim 17, given the amounts of the monomers as taught by Colaianna the ratio of PPVE/PMVE can be calculated to overlap the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Colaianna teaches that the melting temperatures are within the range of 260 to 310 C (Tables).
Regarding claims 20 and 28-29, Colaianna teaches that the fluoropolymer is 100% of the insulating assembly part (Examples).
Regarding claim 22, modified Colaianna teaches that the insulated assembly part can be injection molded (Isaka, [0082]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Insulating assembly parts for secondary batteries which satisfy the strict requirements for the present claims, can be molded at lower temperatures and show increased temperature stability (Table 2).
Examiner’s response: It is not surprising that a higher melt flow index will result in molding at lower temperatures as that is what melt flow measures. As for the temperature stability, looking at the data in Table 2, it is very difficult to determine unexpected results with only one Inventive sample and one Comparative sample. The two samples cannot determine performance over the entire scope of the claimed invention, and therefore, applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights