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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. US20150243964 in view of Sobczyńska (PL191006).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses
a composition to form comprising a porous insulating layer on an active material layer on a main surface of a current collector (the electrode is an electrode including an electrode current collector 10, an electrode active material layer including an electrode active material 21 disposed on one surface of the electrode current collector 10, and an insulating layer including inorganic particles 31 disposed on one surface of the electrode active material layer [Para. 0068]);
the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions and an active material layer binder (The slurry for an electrode active material layer may include an electrode active material, a binder, and a solvent. The electrode active material may include any electrode active material being commonly used, and in case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, for a cathode current collector, a foil made from aluminum, nickel, or a combination thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto. In case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium iron oxide, or lithium composite oxides thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto [Para. 0044]);
the composition to form the porous insulating layer comprises a solvent, an insulating inorganic particle and a porous insulating layer binder (The slurry for an insulating layer may include the inorganic particles, the binder, and the solvent, and if necessary, may further include other additive [Para. 0048]);
the solvent comprising an organic solvent (the solvent included in the slurry for an insulating layer represents a solvent capable of dissolving the binder polymer included in the slurry for an insulating layer. Non-limiting examples of available solvents may include acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethylformamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), cyclohexane, water (distilled water), or mixtures thereof [Para. 0058])
Yu does not disclose the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by a polymerization reaction of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the porous insulating layer binder.
Sobczyńska teaches a porous insulating layer binder (40 - 50 parts by weight of styrene, 10 - 20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30 - 50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylates, 0.5 - 5 parts by weight of acrylic acid and 1 - 5 parts by weight of acrylamide or methacrylamide calculated per 100 parts by weight of acrylic monomers contained in the acrylic copolymer [Pg. 4, Para. 1])
Although Yu is directed to battery electrode assemblies and Sobczynska is directed to polymer coating compositions, both references are analogous art because they are in same field of endeavor namely, polymer binder chemistry for particulate coating compositions and are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor (formulating a copolymer binder that provides robust mechanical adhesion and cohesion of suspended particulate matter on substrate while maintain solvent compatibility and chemical durability).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the binder of Yu with the binder comprising of 40-50 parts by weight of styrene, 10-20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30-50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylate, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of acrylic acid of Sobczynska, in order to have a porous insulating layer with good mechanical properties, good resistance to aggressive environments and good adhesion as taught by Sobczynska [Pg. 4, Para. 6]).
The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one binder material for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., binding the material to the coated substrate) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 7-8, Yu discloses
An electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery the electrode comprising: a current collector, an active material layer on a main surface of a current collector, and a porous insulating layer on the active material layer (the electrode structure may be an electrode structure including an electrode current collector, an electrode active material layer disposed on the current collector, and an insulating layer disposed on the electrode active material layer [Para. 0019]);
the composition to form the porous insulating layer comprises a solvent, an insulating inorganic particle and a porous insulating layer binder (The slurry for an insulating layer may include the inorganic particles, the binder, and the solvent, and if necessary, may further include other additive [Para. 0048]);
the solvent comprising an organic solvent (the solvent included in the slurry for an insulating layer represents a solvent capable of dissolving the binder polymer included in the slurry for an insulating layer. Non-limiting examples of available solvents may include acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethylformamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), cyclohexane, water (distilled water), or mixtures thereof [Para. 0058]);
the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions and an active material layer binder (The slurry for an electrode active material layer may include an electrode active material, a binder, and a solvent. The electrode active material may include any electrode active material being commonly used, and in case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, for a cathode current collector, a foil made from aluminum, nickel, or a combination thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto. In case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium iron oxide, or lithium composite oxides thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto [Para. 0044]); and
A non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery comprising the electrode for the non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, of instant claim 8 (The electrochemical device manufactured by the above method is preferably a lithium secondary battery [Para. 0071]).
Yu does not disclose the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by a polymerization reaction of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the porous insulating layer binder.
Sobczyńska teaches the porous insulating layer binder. (40 - 50 parts by weight of styrene, 10 - 20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30 - 50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylates, 0.5 - 5 parts by weight of acrylic acid and 1 - 5 parts by weight of acrylamide or methacrylamide calculated per 100 parts by weight of acrylic monomers contained in the acrylic copolymer [Pg. 4, Para. 1])
Although Yu is directed to battery electrode assemblies and Sobczynska is directed to polymer coating compositions, both references are analogous art because they are in same field of endeavor namely, polymer binder chemistry for particulate coating compositions and are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor (formulating a copolymer binder that provides robust mechanical adhesion and cohesion of suspended particulate matter on substrate while maintain solvent compatibility and chemical durability).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the binder of Yu with the binder comprising of 40-50 parts by weight of styrene, 10-20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30-50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylate, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of acrylic acid of Sobczynska, in order to have a porous insulating layer with good mechanical properties , good resistance to aggressive environments and good adhesion as taught by Sobczynska [Pg. 4, Para. 6].
The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one binder material for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., binding the material to the coated substrate)” [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses
A method of manufacturing an electrode structure for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([Para. 0068]; [Para. 0078]);
the method comprising: forming a porous insulating layer on an active material layer on a main surface of a current collector (the electrode is an electrode including an electrode current collector 10, an electrode active material layer including an electrode active material 21 disposed on one surface of the electrode current collector 10, and an insulating layer including inorganic particles 31 disposed on one surface of the electrode active material layer [Para. 0068]);
the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions and an active material layer binder (The slurry for an electrode active material layer may include an electrode active material, a binder, and a solvent. The electrode active material may include any electrode active material being commonly used, and in case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, for a cathode current collector, a foil made from aluminum, nickel, or a combination thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto. In case in which the electrode is used as a cathode, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium iron oxide, or lithium composite oxides thereof may be used, and is not limited thereto [Para. 0044]);
the composition to form the porous insulating layer comprises a solvent, an insulating inorganic particle and a porous insulating layer binder (The slurry for an insulating layer may include the inorganic particles, the binder, and the solvent, and if necessary, may further include other additive [Para. 0048]);
the solvent comprising an organic solvent (the solvent included in the slurry for an insulating layer represents a solvent capable of dissolving the binder polymer included in the slurry for an insulating layer. Non-limiting examples of available solvents may include acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethylformamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), cyclohexane, water (distilled water), or mixtures thereof [Para. 0058])
Yu does not disclose the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by a polymerization reaction of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the porous insulating layer binder.
Sobczyńska teaches the porous insulating layer binder. (40 - 50 parts by weight of styrene, 10 - 20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30 - 50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylates, 0.5 - 5 parts by weight of acrylic acid and 1 - 5 parts by weight of acrylamide or methacrylamide calculated per 100 parts by weight of acrylic monomers contained in the acrylic copolymer [Pg. 4, Para. 1])
Although Yu is directed to battery electrode assemblies and Sobczynska is directed to polymer coating compositions, both references are analogous art because they are in same field of endeavor namely, polymer binder chemistry for particulate coating compositions and are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor (formulating a copolymer binder that provides robust mechanical adhesion and cohesion of suspended particulate matter on substrate while maintain solvent compatibility and chemical durability).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the binder of Yu with the binder comprising of 40-50 parts by weight of styrene, 10-20 parts by weight of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 30-50 parts by weight of ethyl acrylate, and 0.5-5 parts by weight of acrylic acid of Sobczynska, in order to have a porous insulating layer with good mechanical properties, good resistance to aggressive environments and good adhesion as taught by Sobczynska [Pg. 4, Para. 6].
The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one binder material for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., binding the material to the coated substrate)” [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2 and 10, Yu discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yu does not disclose wherein a distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material and the organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2.
However, Hansen Solubility parameters is a factor that evaluates the solubility of materials and changes depending on the solvent and resin used. Modified Yu discloses the active material layer binder is CMC-SBR [Para. 0078] and the organic solvent is NMP [Para. 0078], which is the same active material layer and organic solvent disclosed by applicant.
Therefore, it would be expected that the distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material layer binder and the organic solvent of Yu is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2 absent any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3 and 11, Yu discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yu does not disclose the organic solvent has a distance (Ra) with respect to graphene of Hansen solubility parameter calculated utilizing Equation 1 of greater than or equal to about 5.0 Mpa1/2: Equation 1 Ra = {4×(18.0 – δD(solvent))2 + (9.3 – δP(solvent))2 + (7.7 – δH(solvent))2}1/2 wherein, in Equation 1, δD(solvent) Mpa1/2 denotes a solubility parameter due to dispersion force of the organic solvent, δP(solvent) Mpa1/2 denotes a solubility parameter due to polarity (dipole-dipole force) of the organic solvent, and δH(solvent) Mpa1/2 denotes a solubility parameter due to hydrogen bonding forces of the organic solvent.
However, Hansen Solubility parameters is a factor that evaluates the solubility of materials and changes depending on the solvent and resin used. Modified Yu discloses the organic solvent is NMP [Para. 0078], which is the same organic solvent disclosed by applicant.
Therefore, it would be expected that the NMP organic solvent of modified Yu and another component has a distance (Ra) of Hansen solubility parameter calculated utilizing Equation 1 of greater than or equal to about 5.0 Mpa1/2, absent any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4 and 12, Yu discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yu further discloses a boiling point of the organic solvent at 1 atm is greater than or equal to about 160 °C. Yu discloses the organic solvent comprises NMP [Para. 0058], which has a boiling point at 1 atm of 202 °C.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Yu discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yu further discloses the composition to form the porous insulating layer further comprises a polyolefin-based polymer particle (non-limiting examples of the binder polymer may include any one binder polymer selected form the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene, polymethylmethacrylate, polybutylacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinylacetate, polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate [Para. 0056]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Sobczyńska, as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kasai US20110129730A1.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Yu discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yu does not disclose the organic solvent comprises an alcohol-based compound.
Kasai discloses alcohol-based solvents such as methanol, ethanol and isopropyl alcohol [Para 0073]
Kasai teaches that methanol is a known and common solvent used in slurries to form electrodes. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to select an alcohol-based solvent as the solvent for the battery of modified Yu.
The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one binder material for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., binding the material to the coated substrate)” [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of copending Application No. 16/779,193 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘193 which teaches A composition to form a porous insulating layer on an active material layer on a main surface of a current collector, wherein the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions and an active material layer binder, the composition to form the porous insulating layer comprises a solvent, an insulating inorganic particle and a porous insulating layer binder, the solvent comprising an organic solvent, and the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by a polymerization reaction of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the porous insulating layer binder.
‘193 differs from claim 1 in that in that it additionally requires the limitation “wherein a distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material and the organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2 “. However, because instant claim 1 is broader in scope and simply omits this terminal limitation, it encompasses the exact composition claimed in the ‘193 application. A generic claim is not patentably distinct from a narrower species claim in a copending application.
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘193. Instant claim 2 depends on claim 1 and explicitly adds the exact limitation requiring a distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material and the organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2. Therefore, the combined scope of instant claims 1 and 2 is substantively identical to the single claim 1 of ‘193 reference application, rendering them patentably indistinct.
Instant claim 3 is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘193.
Instant claim 4 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘193.
Instant claim 5 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘193.
Instant claim 6 is anticipated by claim 7 of ‘193.
Instant claim 7 is anticipated by claim 8 of ‘193 which teaches An electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, the electrode comprising: a current collector, an active material layer on a main surface of a current collector, and a porous insulating layer on the active material layer, the porous insulating layer being formed of the composition to form the porous insulating layer of a porous insulating layer on the active material layer, the porous insulating layer being formed of the composition to form the porous insulating layer of claim 1 wherein the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions and an active material layer binder.
‘193 differs from instant claim 7 in that claim 8 of ‘193 depends on claim 1 of ‘193 to recite the specific composition components of the porous insulating layer, whereas instant claim 7 explicitly recites the full limitations of that composition within its own claim body. (the solvent comprising an organic solvent, and the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by a polymerization reaction of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the porous insulating layer binder) Because both claims recite the exact same underlying composition parameters, instant claim 7 is identical to and patentably indistinct from claim 8 of the ‘193 reference application.
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 9 of ‘193.
Instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘193 which teaches A method for manufacturing an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, the method comprising: forming a porous insulating layer on an active material layer on a current collector, the porous insulating layer being formed utilizing a composition to form a porous insulating layer, wherein the active material layer comprises an active material to electrochemically intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions and an active material layer binder, the composition to form the porous insulating layer comprises a solvent comprising an organic solvent, an insulating inorganic particle, and a porous insulating layer binder, and the porous insulating layer binder is a polymer obtained by polymerization of monomers selected from the group consisting of about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of an aromatic vinyl compound, about 20 wt% to about 69 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester, about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% of (meth)acrylic acid ester comprising a hydroxy group or an ether group, and about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% of a vinyl compound comprising an acidic functional group, based on a total weight of the binder
‘193 claims 10 differs from instant claim 9 in that ‘193 claim 10 further specifies that a distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material layer binder and the organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2. However, because instant claim 9 is broader in scope and omits this Hansen solubility parameter threshold, it encompasses the method claimed in claim 10 of ‘193. A broader generic method claim is not patentably distinct from a narrower method claim in a copending application
Instant claim 10 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘193. Instant claim 10 depends on claim 9 and explicitly adds the exact limitation requiring the distance between Hansen solubility parameters of the active material and the organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 8.0 MPa1/2. Therefore, the combined scope of instant claims 9 and 10 is substantively identical to claim 10 of the ‘193 reference application, rendering instant claims 9 and 10 patentably indistinct.
Instant claim 11 is anticipated by claim 13 of ‘193.
Instant claim 12 is anticipated by claim 14 of ‘193.
Instant claim 13 is anticipated by claim 15 of ‘193.
Instant claim 14 is anticipated by claim 16 of ‘193.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to CALEB UCHECHUKWU ORJI whose telephone number is (571)270-3370. The
examiner can normally be reached 7:00am- 5:00pm ET Mon-Thur.
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,
Joshua Allen, can be reached at telephone number 5712703176. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status
information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have
questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CALEB U ORJI/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights