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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 6 are amended. Claims 2 & 4 are canceled. Claims 1, 3 & 5-18 are currently pending.
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 1, 3 & 5-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 & 6 each recite the broad recitation “when differential calorimetry is performed… two or more endothermic peaks and/or two or more exothermic peaks are observed”, and the claim also recites “when differential calorimetry is performed… at least one endothermic peak is observed in a region of 125C or more and less than 140C and a least one endothermic peak is observed in a region of 140C or more and less than 190C, and wherein, when differential calorimetry is performed… at least one exothermic peak is observed in a region of 80C or more and less than 125C and a least one exothermic peak is observed in a region of 125C or more and less than 190C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims since the broader limitation uses “and/or” language.
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, 3 & 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (WO 2020/189112 A1, and hereinafter using, as a translation, corresponding US 2022/0158301 A1) in view of Nishikawa (US 2014/0315068 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13 & 15-18, Sato teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery that obtains electromotive force by lithium doping and dedoping, comprising: a positive electrode ([0173]); a negative electrode ([0173]); and a separator, disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0174]), and comprising: a porous substrate and an adhesive porous layer that is provided on one or both sides of the porous substrate, wherein the adhesive layer contains a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin A (i.e corresponding to the claimed PVDF type resin Y) including a structural unit derived from TFE and having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 700,000 to 2,300,000 and a melting point from 150°C to less than 180°C; a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin B (i.e corresponding to the claimed PVDF type resin X) including a structural unit derived from HFP and having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 300,000 to 1,800,000 and a melting point form 125°C to less than 150°C; and a filler, such as metal hydroxide particles or metal sulfate particles, having an average primary particle size of 0.01 microns to 1 microns; wherein a volume ratio of the filler in the adhesive porous layer excluding pores is from 30% by volume to 90% by volume; and wherein a mass ratio of the PVDF resin X and the PVDF resin Y in the adhesive layer is from 20:80 to 80:20 ([0041]-[0061], [0073]-[0097] & [0103]-[0117]; Table 1; Example 11). While Sato discloses that a content ratio HFP units is preferably greater than a content ratio of other monomer units (i.e other than VDF), wherein the content of the other units is preferably 5 mol% or less which suggests that the content ratio of HFP units is greater than 5 mol% (to the extent that the content of other monomer units is 5 mol%) ([0088]-[0089]) but does not teach (1) a maximum content of HFP units in the PVDF type resin X (claims 6 & 15) and is silent as to (2) wherein when differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive layer as a sample, at least one exothermic peak is observed in a region of 80°C or more and less than 125°C and at least one exothermic peak is observed in a region of 125°C or more and less than 190°C (claim 4); (3) a temperature difference between adjacent exothermic peaks is 10°C or more and 60°C or less (claim 5); and (4) an acid value of all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer being less than 3.0 mg KOH/g (claim 13). Nishikawa teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate and an adhesive sporous layer on at least one side of the porous substrate, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a filler; a PVDF type resin A (i.e corresponding to PVDF type resin Y) comprising less than 1.5 mol% of structural units derived from HFP and having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 200,000 to 500,000; and a PVDF type resin B (i.e corresponding to PVDF type resin X) comprising 2 mol% to 15 mol% of structural units derived from HFP and a having a weight average molecular weight of 300,000 to 2,500,000 ([0030] & [0086]-[0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the PVDF type resin X including 2 mol% to 15 mol% of structural units derived from HFP in view of ensuring swelling property with respect to an electrolyte as taught by Nishikawa ([0101]). Moreover, since modified Sato teaches substantially the same composition and structure for the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer, the claimed property of an acid value of less than 3.0 mg KOH/g and the presence of at least two exothermic peaks with the claimed temperature difference between adjacent peaks of 10C or more and 90C or less would be expected to be inherently present in modified Sato’s separator. “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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches a difference between a melting point of the PVDF type resin X and a melting point of the PVDF type resin Y being from 25°C to less than 55°C (Table 1: Example 11).
Regarding claim 12, Sato teaches the adhesive porous layer comprising structural units derived from a monomer represented by formula (1) ([0088]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 14, Sato teaches the weight average molecular weight of all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive layer being from 300,000 to less than 3,000,000 ([0083] & [0087]).
Claims 1, 3 & 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (US 20220190441 A1) in view of Hoshiba (US 20140030578 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-12 & 14-18, Sakurai teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery that obtains electromotive force by lithium doping and dedoping, comprising: a positive electrode ([0186]-[0187]); a negative electrode ([0188]); and a separator, disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0192]), and comprising: a porous substrate; and an adhesive porous layer that is provided on one or both sides of the porous substrate, and that contains a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin including 3 wt% to 20 wt% of a structural unit derived from HFP (i.e corresponding to 1.3 mol% to 9.6 mol% of structural units derived from HFP) and having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 100,000 to 1,500,000; structural units derived from a monomer represented by formula (1); and metal sulfate particles as filler having an average primary particle size of 0.01 microns to 0.3 microns, wherein a volume ratio of the filler in the adhesive porous layer excluding pores is from 40% by volume to 90% by volume ([0049]-[0057], [0068]-[0081], [0083]-[0092], [0116] & [0123]-[0124]). Sakurai is silent as to when a differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer as a sample, two or more endothermic peaks and/or two or more exothermic peaks are observed with at least one endothermic peak observed in a region of 125°C or more and less than 140°C and at least one endothermic peak observed in a region of 140°C or more and less than 190°C and with at least one exothermic peak observed in a region of 80°C or more and less than 125°C and at least one exothermic peak observed in a region of 125°C or more and less than 190°C (claim 1). Sakurai is also silent as to a temperature difference between adjacent endothermic peaks being 10°C or more and 60°C or less (claim 3) and a temperature difference between adjacent exothermic peaks being 10°C or more and 90°C or less (claim 5). Hoshiba teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a separator, disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0036]-[0037]), and comprising: a porous substrate; and an adhesive porous layer that is provided on one or both sides of the porous substrate, and that contains a first polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin (i.e equated to the presently claimed a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin Y) including 3 wt% of a structural unit derived from HFP (which corresponds to 1.3 mol% HFP) and having a weight average molecular weight of 1,500,000 to 2,500,000; a second polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin (i.e equated to the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) type resin X) including 10 wt% to 15 wt% of a structural unit derived from HFP (with an exemplary embodiment using 11 wt% HFP which corresponds to just above 5 mol% HFP) and having a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 to 600,000; wherein a mass ratio of the PVDF resin X and the PVDF resin Y in the adhesive porous layer is from 20:80 to 80:20 ([0037]-[0045], [0048] & [0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the PVDF type resin X and the PVDF type resin Y in view of maintaining a suitable ratio of solid for a viscose of a coating solution of the adhesive porous layer thereby improving a smoothness of the layer and improving buckling resistance as taught by Hoshiba ([0042] & [0045]-[0046]). While Sakurai as modified by Hoshiba does not explicitly teach or suggest two or more endothermic peak and/or two or more exothermic peak being observed, it is noted that Hoshiba teaches a first PVDF resin and second PVDF resin having substantially the same structure (same weight average molecular weight) and composition (i.e same content of HFP and VDF) as that of the presently claimed PVDF type resin Y and PVDF type resin X, respectively. Accordingly, since Hoshiba teaches the claimed PVDF composition and structure, two or more endothermic peak and/or two or more exothermic peaks would be expected to be observed when differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer as a sample. Furthermore, the claimed melting points of the PVDF type resin Y and the PVDF type resin X would be expected to be inherently present in the first and second PVDF resins disclosed in Hoshiba in view of the same structure and composition of the first and second PVDF type resins. “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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 8, Sakurai as modified by Hoshiba teaches the separator of claim 6 but is silent as to a difference between a melting point of the PVDF type resin X and a melting point of the PVDF type resin Y being from 25°C to less than 55°C. However, as noted above, Hoshiba teaches a first PVDF type resin and a second PVDF type resin having substantially the same composition and structure as that of the presently claimed PVDF type resin Y and PVDF type resin X. As such, a difference between a melting point of the PVDF type resin X and a melting point of the PVDF type resin Y being 25°C to less than 55°C would be expected.
Regarding claim 13, Sakurai as modified by Hoshiba teaches the separator of claim 1 but is silent as to an acid value of all of the PVDF type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer being less than 3.0 mg KOH/g. However, since modified Sakurai teaches the same composition for all of the PVDF type resins contained in the adhesive porous layer, one would expect the acid value of all of the PVDF type resins to be less than 3.0 mg KOH/g.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the combined teachings of Sakurai + Hoshiba and Sato + Nishikawa does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed subject matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, regarding the combination of Sato and Nishikawa to show inherence of the claimed endothermic and exothermic peak behaviors, applicant argues that the peak behavior is process-dependent and cannot be predicted from raw starting resins. To support that argument, applicant points to the results of Reference Example 1 which is a simple 50:50 physical mixture of the two PVDF type resins X and Yand Example 4 which is the same mixture as that of Reference Example 1 but after having undergone the wet-coating and solidification process described in the instant specification. However, it is noted that whether the PVDF type resins are provided as a simple mixture or provided using the specific process described in Example 4, the claimed exothermic peaks are still present in both sample. In particular, in Reference Example 1, the two exothermic peaks obtained for the two PVDF type resins X and Y are within the ranges recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Moreover, the temperature difference between the two exothermic peaks is also within the claimed range of 10C or more and 90C or less. Accordingly, while the specific process described in Example 4 may modify the values of the exothermic peaks (relative to the simple mixture used in Reference Example 1), it is noted that both values are within the claimed ranges. Notwithstanding, it is noted that Sato teaches the same method of obtaining the claimed adhesive porous layer through wet-coating by solidifying a coating layer in a coagulation liquid, washing the resulting product and then drying ([0157]-[0159]). Therefore, since Sato discloses the claimed PVDF type resins X and Y with the claimed weight average molecular weights and compositions as well as the same method of forming the adhesive porous layer containing the two PVDF type resins X and Y, the claimed endothermic and exothermic peaks would be expected to be inherently present within modified Sato. “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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. With regards to Applicant’s arguments on the combination of Sakurai and Hoshiba, applicant presents similar arguments as above that the process of forming the adhesive layer imparts distinct changes on the exothermic behavior of the two PVDF type resins X and Y relative to a simple mixture of the two resins. However, as noted above, it is noted that the simple mixture of the two PVDF type resins X and Y still produce exothermic peaks which read on the claimed ranges in claims 1 & 6. Furthermore, Sakurai teaches the same process of forming the adhesive porous layer through wet-coating by solidifying a coating layer in a coagulation liquid, washing the resulting product and then drying ([0165]-[0167]). Accordingly, when two PVDF type resins of Sakurai as modified by Hoshiba are used to form the adhesive porous layer in Sakurai by the wet-coating method described above, the claimed endothermic and exothermic peaks would be expected to be inherently present within modified Sakurai. “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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 3 & 5-18 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
