DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 3, 5-6 in the reply filed on March 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Since no arguments have been filed, the election is considered without traverse.
Claims 7-8, 10, 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 3, 2026.
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.
3. Claim 3 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.
4. Claim 3 refers to a molar ratio of the monomers, but there are no prepositions “the” or “said” in front of “acrylonitrile monomer” and “acrylamide monomer”; therefore, it is not clear if said terms are the same or different from those previously cited.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhang et al (US 2014/0045033) in view of Zhao et al (CN103035866, based on machine translation submitted in IDS on 08/28/25).
6. Zhang et al discloses a ceramic coating for battery separators, comprising one or more ceramic particles distributed in a polymer binder (Abstract, [0022]), wherein the ceramic particles comprise oxides of silicon, alumina having size of 0.01-2 micron in diameter ([0022], as to instant claim 5) and the polymer binder comprises a poly(sodium acrylate-acrylamide-acrylonitrile) copolymer ([0024], as to instant claim 3); and the ratio between the polymer binder and the ceramic particle is 1:99 to 99:1 ([0025]), or up to 80%wt, or up to 60%wt of the particles, based on the weight of the coating material, are used ([0060]).
7. The specific example 2 shows a coating comprising a mixture of poly(sodium acrylate-acrylamide-acrylonitrile) copolymer with alumina ceramic particles having the particle size of less than 2 micron; and the coating having a thickness of 6 micron ([0044]).
8. Thus, Zhang et al discloses a ceramic coating, wherein the ceramic alumina microparticles are distributed within/mixed with a polyacrylate copolymer comprising an acrylate monomer, an acrylonitrile monomer and an acrylamide monomer, as required by instant claim 1.
9. The weight ratio between the ceramic particles and the polyacrylate binder is overlapping with that as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Given the ceramic particles are used in amount of 80%wt based on the weight of the composite coating material ([0060]), the amount of the polymeric binder will be 20%wt; given the ceramic particles are used in amount of 50%wt based on the weight of the composite coating material ([0060]), the amount of the polymeric binder will be 50%wt.
10. Though Zhang et al recites the ceramic particles being distributed within the polyacrylate-based coating, Zhang et al does not explicitly teach said ceramic particles being individually coated, like having core-shell structure, with said polyacrylate coating, and the overall coated particles having size of 5-100 micron, or 7-8 micron.
11. However, Zhao et al discloses a ceramic coating for a ceramic battery separator, having a core-shell structure with core being ceramic particles including alumina or silica having size of 50nm-10 micron, and an acrylate polymer shell ([0002], [0013]-[0015]), with shell thickness of 1-10 micron ([0015]).
Thus, Zhao et al explicitly teaches that the ceramic coating used in separators can be made in the form of core-shell particles, wherein the ceramic particles are coated with the acrylate coating, wherein such core-shell composites have improved uniformity of the coating and improve the overall performance and stability of the ceramic membrane/separator ([0009]).
12. Since both Zhao et al and Zhang et al are related to ceramic coatings comprising ceramic particles and an acrylate polymer-based binder/coating, used for battery separators, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Zhao et al explicitly teaches that the ceramic coatings can be made in the form of core-shell particles, wherein ceramic particles are coated with the acrylate binder coating, thereby improving uniformity of the coating and improving the overall performance and stability of the ceramic membrane/separator, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang et al and Zhao et al, and to modify, or obvious to try to modify the ceramic coating of Zhang et al by forming said ceramic coating in the form of core-shell particles, i.e. coating the alumina ceramic particles of Zhang et al with the acrylate-acrylamide-acrylonitrile-based copolymer binder, thus forming core-shell composites, so to ensure uniformity of the coating, preventing agglomeration of the ceramic particles, and thus to improve the overall performance and stability of the ceramic membrane/separator, as taught by Zhao et al as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
13. Given the ceramic coating of Zhang et al in view of Zhao et al comprises ceramic particles with size of 0.05 micron to about 2 micron ([0022] of Zhang et al); the ceramic coating has a thickness of 5.5-9 micron ([0078] of Zhang et al) and the coating/shell thickness in the core-shell particles maybe up to 10 micron ([0016] of Zhao et al); therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the ceramic particles having size of 2 micron, the shell/coating thickness of up to 10 micron, such as 3-7 micron, so to ensure the overall core-shell particle-based ceramic coating has an overall particle size/thickness of 5.5-9 micron, as required by Zhang et al, including the overall core-shell particle size of 7-8 micron as well (as to instant claims 1, 6), since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764