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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12-18 in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12, line 10 recites that “n presents an integer of 0 or more”. However, there is no “n” in Formula (1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (EP 3627586 A1).
Re Claim 1. Sato teaches a separator for a non-aqueous secondary battery (abstract), the separator comprising:
a porous substrate (para. 15); and
an adhesive porous layer (para. 15) that is provided on one side or on both sides of the porous substrate, and that contains a polyvinylidene fluoride type resin (para. 43-71) and a filler (para. 75-81),
wherein a Gurley value of the separator is from 50 sec/100mL to 450 sec/100mL (para. 92),
wherein, when differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer as a sample, two or more endothermic peaks are observed (para. 22, 66, 129, Example 10, resin A melting point = 130-148°C, resin B melting point = 159-180°C) and
wherein, when differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer as a sample, two or more endothermic peaks are observed, and a temperature difference between adjacent endothermic peaks is 11°C or more and 50°C or less (para. 22, 66, 129, Example 10, resin A melting point = 130-148°C, resin B melting point = 159-180°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. 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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Sato does not explicitly disclose that two or more exothermic peaks are observed.
However, since Sato and the claimed separator employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (two or more exothermic peaks being observed) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Sato. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 2. Sato teaches wherein, when differential scanning calorimetry is performed with all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer as a sample, at least one endothermic peak is observed in a region of 125°C or more and less than 140°C (para. 22, 66, 129, Example 10, resin A melting point = 130-148°C) and at least one endothermic peak is observed in a region of 140°C or more and less than 190°C (para. 22, 66, 129, Example 10, resin B melting point = 159-180°C).
Re Claims 4 and 5. Sato does not explicitly disclose temperature ranges of the at least two exothermic peaks and a temperature difference between adjacent exothermic peaks.
However, since Sato and the claimed separator employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (temperature ranges of the at least two exothermic peaks and a temperature difference between adjacent exothermic peaks) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Sato. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 12. Sato teaches wherein the adhesive porous layer comprises structural units derived from a monomer represented by the following formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
114
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula (1), each of R1, R2, and R3 independently represents a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a C1-5 alkyl group, a carboxyl group or a derivative of a carboxyl group; X represents a single bond, a C1-5 alkylene group, or a substituted C1-5 alkylene group; and Y represents a hydrogen atom, a C1-5 alkyl group, a C1-5 alkyl group that contains at least one hydroxy group, a C1-5 alkyl group that contains at least one carboxyl group (para. 47 & 48).
Re Claim 13. Sato does not explicitly disclose that an acid value of all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer is less than 3.0 mg KOH/g.
However, since Sato and the claimed separator employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an acid value of all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer being less than 3.0 mg KOH/g) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Sato. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 14. Sato teaches wherein a weight-average molecular weight of all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer is from 300,000 to less than 3,000,000 (para. 65 & 68).
Re Claim 15. Sato teaches wherein a content ratio of structural units derived from hexafluoropropylene is from more than 3.5 mol% to 7.0 mol% with respect to a total of structural units, in all of the polyvinylidene fluoride type resin contained in the adhesive porous layer (para. 64, Example 10).
Re Claim 16. Sato teaches wherein a volume ratio of the filler in the adhesive porous layer excluding pores is from 40% by volume to 85% by volume (para. 79).
Re Claim 17. Sato teaches wherein the filler contains at least one selected from the group consisting of metal hydroxide particles, metal sulfate particles, and barium titanate particles (para. 80).
Re Claim 18. Sato teaches wherein an average primary particle size of all of the filler contained in the adhesive porous layer is from 0.1 µm to 1.5 µm (para. 76).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/16/2026
