DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/578,418, which is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/028403, filed 7/21/2022, which claims priority to Japanese application JP2021-126182, filed 7/30/2021.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-7 are considered herein.
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 without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 8/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 10,374,204: This reference teaches a separator with an organic particulate binder.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiike, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0013465 A1), in view of Tsuchiya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0047690 A1), and further in view of Sasaki, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0200932 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Akiike teaches a composition for an electrochemical device functional layer (paragraphs [0028]-[0097]).
The composition of Akiike comprising a particulate polymer (paragraphs [0067]-[0097]).
Akiike teaches that the particulate polymer of his composition functions as a binder (paragraph [0067]).
Therefore, the composition of Akiike comprises a binder.
The composition of Akiike comprises heat-resistant fine particles (paragraph [0028]).
Akiike teaches that the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of -50 °C to 20 °C (paragraph [0093]).
This disclosure teaches that the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of “not lower than 20°C and not higher than 100°C.”
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not lower than 20°C and not higher than 100°C” overlaps with the taught range of -50 °C to 20 °C.
Akiike is silent regarding the degree of swelling of the particulate polymer of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the particulate polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8.
However, Akiike teaches that the particulate polymer of his invention is an acrylic polymer (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
To solve the same problem of providing an acrylic polymeric component of a battery functional layer, Tsuchiya teaches that an acrylic polymeric component of a battery functional layer should preferably have a degree of swelling in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 times, and that using a polymeric component with a degree of swelling in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 times provides the benefit of producing a battery cell with a good cycle life (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have designed the particulate polymer of Akiike to have a swelling degree in the battery electrolyte of 2-10, based on Tsuchiya’s disclosure that this swelling degree produces a battery with good cycle life.
Designing the particulate polymer of Akiike to have a swelling degree in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 teaches that “the particulate polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8.”
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8” overlaps with the taught range of 2-10.
Akiike does not teach that the particulate polymer has the dimensions recited in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a particle polymer material for a functional layer for a battery, Sasaki teaches that forming the D50 of an organic particulate polymer in such a layer to have a D50 from 0.01-10 microns (paragraph [0058]).
Sasaki further teaches that forming an organic particulate polymer in such a layer to have a D50 from 0.01-10 microns (paragraph [0058]) provides the benefit of improving low temperature output characteristics of the battery and adhesion of the functional layer (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the particulate polymer materials of modified Akiike to have a D50 between 0.01-10 microns, based on Sasaki’s disclosure.
Forming the particulate polymer materials of modified Akiike to have a D50 between 0.01-10 microns, as taught by Sasaki, teaches that the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of more than 1.0 microns and not more than 15.0 microns.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “more than 1.0 microns and not more than 15.0 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 0.01-10 microns.
Forming the particulate polymer materials of modified Akiike to have a D50 between 0.01-10 microns, as taught by Sasaki, teaches that a particle diameter distribution by number of the particulate polymer has at least one peak in a particle diameter range of not less than 5.0 microns and not more than 10.0 microns and has at least one peak or shoulder in a particle diameter range of not less than 1.0 micron and not more than 3.0 microns.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not less than 5.0 microns and not more than 10.0 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 0.01-10 microns.
Further, the claimed range of “at least one peak or shoulder in a particle diameter range of not less than 1.0 micron and not more than 3.0 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 0.01-10 microns.
In reference to Claim 3, modified Akiike does not teach that the particulate polymer necessarily includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit.
However, he teaches that the polymer particles may suitably include aromatic vinyl monomer units (styrene, α-methylstyrene, vinyltoluene, chlorostyrene, and hydroxymethylstyrene, paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated any of styrene, α-methylstyrene, vinyltoluene, chlorostyrene, and hydroxymethylstyrene into the binder particulate polymer of modified Akiike, because Akiike teaches that these are monomers suitable for inclusion into the particulate binder polymers of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the particulate polymer includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 4, modified Akiike does not teach that the particulate polymer necessarily includes any of the monomer units recited in Claim 4.
However, he teaches that the polymer particles may suitably include nitrile group-containing monomers units, paragraphs [0072]-[0073]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a nitrile-containing monomer unit into the binder particulate polymer of modified Akiike, because Akiike teaches that these are monomers suitable for inclusion into the particulate binder polymers of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the particulate polymer includes a nitrile-group containing monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 5, modified Akiike does not teach that the binder necessarily includes a crosslinkable monomer unit.
However, he teaches that the binder/particulate polymer of his invention may suitably comprise crosslinkable monomer units (paragraphs [0078]-[0081]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the binder particles to comprise crosslinkable monomer units, based on Akiike’s disclosure that this is a suitable material for the binder particles of his invention.
Forming the binder particles to comprise crosslinkable monomer units teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the binder includes a crosslinkable monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 6, modified Akiike does not teach that the binder necessarily includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit.
However, he teaches that the binder/particulate polymer of his invention may suitably comprise (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units (paragraphs [0070]-[0071]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the binder particles to comprise (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units, based on Akiike’s disclosure that this is a suitable material for the binder particles of his invention.
Forming the binder particles to comprise (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the binder includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 7, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the particulate polymers of Akiike are binders.
Further, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the binder polymers of modified Akiike have a D50 between 0.01-10 microns.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the binder has a volume-average particle diameter of 0.8 microns or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “0.8 microns or less” overlaps with the taught range of 0.01-10 microns.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0184311 A1), in view of Tsuchiya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0047690 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Lefebvre teaches a composition for an electrochemical device functional layer, i.e. a separator coating layer (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0029]-[0058]).
The composition comprises a particulate polymer, corresponding the mixture of large and small binder particles described in paragraphs [0030]-[0044]).
Lefebvre teaches that the particulate polymer of his composition functions as a binder (paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, the composition of Lefebvre comprises a binder.
The composition comprises heat-resistant fine particles (paragraph [0046]).
Lefebvre teaches that the particulate polymer has a bimodal distribution, with one population of particles having an average particle diameter of 2-20 microns (paragraph [0041]) and another population of particles having an average particle diameter of less than 1.5 microns (paragraph [0040]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the particulate polymer has a volume-average particle diameter of more than 1.0 microns and not more than 15.0 microns.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “more than 1.0 microns and not more than 15.0 microns” overlaps with the taught ranges of 2-20 microns and less than 1.5 microns.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the particulate polymer has a particle diameter distribution by number of the particulate polymer with at least one peak in a particle diameter range of not less than 5.0 microns and not more than 10.0 microns.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not less than 5.0 microns and not more than 10.0 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 2-20 microns.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the particulate polymer has a particle diameter distribution by number of the particulate polymer with at least one peak or shoulder in a particle diameter range of not less than 1.0 micron and not more than 3.0 microns.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not less than 1.0 micron and not more than 3.0 microns” overlaps with the taught range of less than 1.5 microns.
Lefebvre teaches that all the particulate polymers in the particulate binders of his invention have a glass-transition temperature of less than 60°C (paragraph [0030]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the particulate polymer has a glass-transition temperature of not lower than 20°C and not higher than 100°C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not lower than 20°C and not higher than 100°C” overlaps with the taught range of less than 60°C.
Lefebvre is silent regarding the degree of swelling of the particulate polymer of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the particulate polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8.
However, Lefebvre teaches that the particulate polymers of his invention are acrylic polymers (paragraph [0030]).
To solve the same problem of providing an acrylic polymeric component of a battery functional layer, Tsuchiya teaches that an acrylic polymeric component of a battery functional layer should preferably have a degree of swelling in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 times, and that using a polymeric component with a degree of swelling in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 times provides the benefit of producing a battery cell with a good cycle life (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have designed the particulate polymers of Lefebvre to have a swelling degree in the battery electrolyte of 2-10, based on Tsuchiya’s disclosure that this swelling degree produces a battery with good cycle life.
Designing the particulate polymer of Lefebvre to have a swelling degree in the battery electrolyte of 2-10 teaches that “the particulate polymer has a degree of swelling in electrolyte solution of not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8.”
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “not less than a factor of 1 and not more than a factor of 8” overlaps with the taught range of 2-10.
In reference to Claim 2, Lefebvre is silent regarding the relative number amounts of the small and large particles in the coating composition of his invention. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 2.
However, he teaches that the coating composition is used to make a coating that comprises 0.5-50 area percent of large particles (paragraph [0043]), and that the function of the large particles in the coating layer is to provide an irregular coating surface, which provides the benefit of allowing for internal expansion, which minimizes changes in battery thickness and facilitates improved battery performance (paragraphs [0014] and [0041]).
He further teaches that the small diameter particles provide a binding function that adhere inorganic particles in the coating to the underlying substrate (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have tuned the relative amounts of large and small particles within the composition of modified Lefebvre, in order to balance adhesion of the inorganic particles of the composition with achieving the desired roughness and internal expansion of the battery structure.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed composition of “a proportion constituted by a number of particles having a particle diameter of 3 microns or less is not less than 20% and not more than 50% of a total number of particles in the particle diameter distribution of the particulate polymer,” without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 6, modified Lefebvre does not teach that the binder necessarily includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit.
However, he teaches that the binder/particulate polymer of his invention may suitably comprise poly(meth)acrylate (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the binder particles to comprise poly(meth)acrylate, based on Lefebvre’s disclosure that this is a suitable material for the binder particles of his invention.
Forming the binder particles to comprise poly(meth)acrylate teach the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the binder includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 7, Lefebvre teaches that the particulate polymer of his composition functions as a binder (paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
He further teaches that the binder particulate polymer particles comprise “small diameter” particles, with an average particle diameter of less than 1.5 microns (paragraph [0040]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the binder has a volume-average particle diameter of 0.8 microns or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “0.8 microns or less” lies within the taught range of less than 1.5 microns.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0184311 A1), in view of Tsuchiya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0047690 A1), and further in view of Yeou, et al. (U.S. Patent 9,178,198).
In reference to Claim 3, modified Lefebvre does not teach that the particulate polymer includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit.
However, he teaches that the binder polymer particles suitably include PVDF (paragraph [0031]).
To solve the same problem of providing a coated separator for a lithium battery, wherein the coated separator comprises an organic binder, Yeou teaches that suitable materials for organic binders in these coating layers include both PVDF and acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber (column 9, lines 27-37).
Yeou’s disclosure teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using either PVDF or acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber as a binder material in the separator coating layer of Lefebvre.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber as the binder particulate polymer material of modified Lefebvre, based on the disclosure of Yeou.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the particulate polymer includes an aromatic vinyl monomer unit.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0184311 A1), in view of Tsuchiya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0047690 A1), and further in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0186680 A1).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Lefebvre does not teach that the particulate polymer includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, an N-methylolamide group-containing monomer unit, or an epoxy group-containing unsaturated monomer unit.
To solve the same problem of providing a coating layer for a separator in a lithium ion battery, wherein the coating layer comprises an acrylate polymer, Kim teaches a specific acrylate polymer binder composition that incorporates crosslinkable monomers (Abstract).
Kim further teaches that some of these suitable crosslinkable monomers include nitrile containing monomer units (paragraph [0012]) or an epoxy group (paragraph [0050])
Kim further teaches that the crosslinked binder material of his invention (which incorporates nitrile or epoxy crosslinkable monomers) provides the benefit of suppressing delamination of the coating, which ensures good physical stability, thermal stability, and durability against internal short-circuiting (paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a nitrile or epoxy crosslinkable monomer taught by Kim into the particulate polymer of modified Lefebvre, in order to realize the benefits that Kim teaches.
Incorporating a nitrile or epoxy crosslinkable monomer taught by Kim into the particulate polymer of modified Lefebvre teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the particulate polymer includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, or an epoxy group-containing unsaturated monomer unit.
In reference to Claim 5, modified Lefebvre does not explicitly teach that the particulate polymer includes a cross-linkable monomer unit.
To solve the same problem of providing a coating layer for a separator in a lithium ion battery, wherein the coating layer comprises an acrylate polymer, Kim teaches a specific acrylate polymer binder composition that is crosslinked with isocyanate (Abstract).
Kim further teaches that the crosslinked binder material of his invention (which incorporates a crosslinkable monomer) provides the benefit of suppressing delamination of the coating, which ensures good physical stability, thermal stability, and durability against internal short-circuiting (paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a crosslinkable monomer into the particulate polymer of modified Lefebvre, in order to realize the benefits that Kim teaches.
Incorporating a crosslinkable monomer into the particulate polymer of modified Lefebvre teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the particulate polymer includes a cross-linkable monomer unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
