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 1-16 in the reply filed on November 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 7, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, insert “the” before “Ar”.
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 10 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 10 recites the solubility parameter for the resin component. However, it is unclear from the specification as to what solvent(s) was used for measurement of the solubility parameter of a resin component. For examination purpose, if a prior art discloses claimed resin component, it will meet the solubility parameter recited in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wensley et al. (US 20040241550A1) and as evidence by (a) an article “Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants: Volume 3 (1996)” from National Academy of Science (“article”), (b) Technical Datasheet “Isopropyl Alcohol” from Shell Chemicals (“Datasheet”), AND (c) Technical Datasheet “Acetone” from Shell Chemicals (“Technical datasheet”).
As to claim 1, Wensley teaches a battery separator for a Li battery comprising a microporous membrane and a coating (adhesive composition) thereon (abstract). Furter, Wensley teaches that the coating is intended to facilitate bonding of the laminate structure of anode/separator/cathode (0012). Further, Wensley teaches that the coating is a mixture of a gel forming polymer PVDF (0013 and 0014), a first solvent such as acetone (0013 and 0015), and a second solvent such as butanol and isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol) (0013 and 0016).
Further, as to claim 1, as to the claimed first solvent and its vapor pressure P1, it is submitted that Wensley and applicant disclose identical solvent (acetone) (see 0015 of Wensley and Table 1 in the present specification). Therefore, it is clear that the first solvent of Wensley inherently has the claimed vapor pressure.
Further as to claim 1, as to the claimed second solvent and its vapor pressure P2, Wensley as set forth previously discloses butanol (0016) as the second solvent. As shown by the cited article, butanol has vapor pressure of 6.5 mm Hg at 20°C (see pages 1-2 under “PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES” of 1-butanol).
Alternatively, as to the claimed second solvent and its vapor pressure, Wensley as set forth previously discloses isopropanol as the second solvent (0016). As shown by the cited Datasheet, isopropanol has vapor pressure of 4.1 Kpa at 20°C, which converts to 31 mm Hg (1 kpa = 7.5 mm Hg).
As to claim 1, Wensley teaches claimed invention except for the property “the solubility of the resin component at 25°C in 100 g of a mixed solvent of the first solvent and the second solvent at a weight ratio of 5:5 is 20 g or more.” However, it is submitted 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 is established. Further, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01 (I)(II). Given that Wensley as set forth previously teaches identical adhesive composition as the claimed, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the adhesive composition of Wensley. Alternatively, said property would obviously be present once the adhesive composition of Wensley is provided.
As to claims 2 and 3, Wensley teaches claimed invention except for the property recited in the claims. However, it is submitted 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 is established. Further, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01 (I)(II). Given that Wensley as set forth previously teaches identical adhesive composition as the claimed, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the adhesive composition of Wensley. Alternatively, said property would obviously be present once the adhesive composition of Wensley is provided.
As to claim 4, Wensley discloses PVDF-HFP copolymer (0014 and 0020).
As to claim 6, Wensley does not explicitly disclose the ratio P1/P2. However, Wensley as set forth teaches first solvent and the second solvent having the claimed vapor pressure. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Wensley inherently meets claim 6.
As to claim 7, Wensley as set forth previously discloses acetone as the first solvent (0015), which has a normal boiling point of 56°C (see cited Technical datasheet).
As to claim 8, Wensley as set forth previously discloses butanol as the second solvent (0016), which has a normal boiling point of 118°C (see cited article).
As to claim 9, Wensley does not explicitly disclose the ratio PB1/PB2. However, Wensley as set forth teaches first solvent and the second solvent having the claimed boiling point. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Wensley inherently meets claim 9 (e.g. 56°C/118°C = 0.47).
As to claim 10, Wensley as set forth previously discloses claimed first solvent and the resin component. Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the Wensley inherently meets claimed Equation 2.
As to claim 12, Wensley as set forth previously discloses acetone.
As to claim 14, Wensley as set forth previously teaches claimed adhesive composition. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the property of the contact angle is inherently present in the invention of Wensley.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EA019608 B1 (“EA608B1”).
As to claim 1 , EA608B1 teaches biologically active coating on implants made of metallic and ceramic materials (page 3, “The stated problem is solvent due to…”). Further, EA608B1 discloses a solution (adhesive composition) of PVDF polymer (resin component) in a mixed solvent of acetone (first solvent) and butyl acetate (second solvent) (page 3 beginning at “According to the invention, polyvinylidene fluoride powder is used as a polymer, a mixture of acetone and butyl acetate is used as a mixed solvent…”).
Further, as to claim 1 limitations of the first solvent vapor pressure and the second solvent vapor pressure, EA608B1 does not explicitly teach vapor pressure of the solvents. However, EA608B1 as set forth previously and applicant use identical solvents (acetone and butyl acetate) (see Table 1 and Table 2 of the present specification). Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the first solvent (acetone) and the second solvent (butyl acetate) disclosed by EA608B1 would inherently have the claimed vapor pressure. Moreover, the solution of PVDF polymer (resin component) in a mixed solvent of acetone (first solvent) and butyl acetate (second solvent) as disclosed by EA608B1 above is identical to the claimed adhesive composition, as such a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the aforementioned solution disclosed in EA608B1 is adhesive composition as recited in the preamble.
Further, as to claim 1, EA608B1 teaches claimed invention except for the property “the solubility of the resin component at 25°C in 100 g of a mixed solvent of the first solvent and the second solvent at a weight ratio of 5:5 is 20 g or more.” However, it is submitted 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 is established. Further, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01 (I)(II). Given that EA608B1 as set forth previously teaches identical adhesive composition as the claimed, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the adhesive composition of EA608B1. Alternatively, said property would obviously be present once the adhesive composition of EA608B1 is provided.
As to claims 2 and 3, EA608B1 teaches claimed invention except for the property recited in the claims. However, it is submitted 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 is established. Further, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01 (I)(II). Given that EA608B1 as set forth previously teaches identical adhesive composition as the claimed, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the adhesive composition of EA608B1. Alternatively, said property would obviously be present once the adhesive composition of EA608B1 is provided.
As to claim 4, EA608B1 as set forth previously discloses polyvinylidene fluoride polymer, which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as claimed PVDF homopolymer.
As to claim 5, EA608B1 discloses solution containing 90 wt% of mixed solvent (acetone/butyl acetate) and 10 wt% of PVDF (page 13). Thus, EA608B1 teaches 10 wt% of PVDF, which is within the claimed range of 8 wt% to 11 wt%.
As to claims 6-11, EA608B1 as set forth previously teaches identical first solvent, second solvent, and resin component as claimed. Therefore, the properties recited in claims 6-11 would inherently be present in EA608B1.
As to claim 12, EA608B1 as set forth previously discloses acetone, which inherently has ketone group in its molecule.
As to claim 13, EA608B1 as set forth previously discloses butyl acetate, which inherently has an ester group in its molecule.
As to claim 14, EA608B1 as set forth previously teaches claimed adhesive composition. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the property of the contact angle is inherently present in the invention of EA608B1.
As to claims 15 and 16, EA608B1 discloses 90 wt% of mixed solvent (70 wt% acetone, 30 wt% butyl acetate) and 10 wt% of PVDF (page 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Safety Data Sheet “Butyl Acetate” disclosing boiling point of 126°C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 January 22, 2026