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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024, 10/28/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification was received on 05/08/2024 and is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for C4H9 or C4H10, does not reasonably provide enablement for C4H13. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 32 and 34 recite C4H13 as the rest of a methalcrylic and an acrylic monomer unit of the polymer shown in Formulas 1 and 2. Such recitations define the scope of the claim to include a compound composed of 4 carbon atoms and 13 hydrogen atoms. Carbon can maximally form 4 covalent bonds and a saturated alkene chain consisting of 4 carbons can maximally include 10 hydrogen atoms. (Cn=H2n+2). Since one carbon of the rest chain is connected to a c-Atom of the acrylic functional group of the monomer maximally 9 hydrogens can be bonded to the carbon. Furthermore, and in accordance with the In re Wands factors (see MPEP 2164.01(a)), the claims are not enabled when considered in light of the following factors:
The nature of the invention: the invention is a separator material for electrochemical devices and a manufacturing method therefore.
The state of the prior art: given the state of the prior art, as noted below in the rejections of e.g. claims 28 or 40, specifically where a polymer as recited in 32and 43 is made or used, the recited (C4H13) requires a more detailed disclosure by the Applicant in order to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as claimed.
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art: one of ordinary skill in the art is considered to be a graduate in materials science or chemistry, skilled in the design of photopolymerizable polymer compositions and their application to separators for electrochemical devices, and familiar with parameters that affect the making and using of polymer compositions and their application to separators for use in electrochemical devices.
The level of predictability in the art: the level of predictability in this art is considered to be moderate, insofar as there are some variables, e.g. the exact composition and crosslinking via UV- light, known to affect such compounds.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the inventor does not provide adequate direction as to how to achieve the C4H13 rest chain recited in e.g. claim 43 which meets the claim limitations. For example, no direction is provided for achieving actual compositions of the compound.
The existence of working examples: there are no examples in the specification which disclose specific composition, specifically, the C4H13 and its increased hydrogen content in e.g. Formula 1, and therefore, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art the ability to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with the recited e.g. Chemical Formula 1.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: the Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the invention commensurate in scope with the recited e.g. Chemical Formula 1 because it unclear how to achieve a polymer including excess hydrogen, as required by C4H13. Therefore, an undue level of experimentation would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the specifics of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 47 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 47 recites, 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, claim 47 recites the broad recitation 200 nm to 400 nm, and the claim also recites 230 nm to 350 nm 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”).
Regarding claim 40, Bauer discloses a method of manufacturing a separator for an electrochemical device (Bauer: example 1), the method comprising: preparing a slurry for forming an organic and inorganic composite porous layer (Bauer: feed 1 in example 1) comprising inorganic particles (Bauer: wallastonite col. 29, line 58) and a non-crosslinked particulate acrylic binder polymer comprising a benzophenone functional group (Preparation Example 1 (PA 1) and 4-hydroxybenzophenone Col. 29, line 51); applying (applied in a manner known …for example spray coating, casting dipping…Col. 25, lines 38-41 ) and drying (removing diluent Col. 25, line 42) the slurry on at least one surface of a porous polymer substrate (applied to a substrate, Col. 25, lines 38, microporous PE film of thickness 8 um (Celgard (R) Col. 30 line 4-5); and irradiating with ultraviolet rays (Philips TL 09 super actinic fluorescent tubes Bauer col. 30, line 9).
Regarding claim 41, modified Bauer discloses the method of claim 40 and further discloses that the non-crosslinked particulate acrylic binder polymer comprises a first acrylic monomer unit and a second acrylic monomer unit, and wherein the first acrylic monomer unit comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of benzophenone methacrylate unit, 6-(4-benzoylphenoxy)hexyl methacrylate unit, and benzophenone acrylate unit (see Bauer Col.9, example 25).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Kaneda et al. (US10290873B2; Kaneda hereinafter).
Regarding claim 29, Bauer discloses a separator for an electrochemical device (composite bodies used as separators in electrochemical cells, title), the separator comprising: a porous polymer substrate (one conventional separator, abstract, Celgard example 1); and an organic and inorganic composite porous layer (Bauer discloses a film ( Col. 30, line 3) made of consisting of an acrylic mixture (PA1) and hydrophobicized wollastonite ( Col. 29, line 58), example) positioned on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (laminated onto the microporous PE film Col. 30, line 7 ) and containing inorganic particles (weight of a solid (I) with a primary particle size of from 5 nm to 100 mum or a mixture, abstract and discloses various inorganic options for example titanium dioxide col. 3, lines 3-14) and an acrylic binder polymer (a polymeric binder (abstract) and mixture including ethylhexyl acrylate (example 1)), wherein the particulate acrylic binder polymer has a crosslinked structure mediated by a benzophenone functional group (capable of crosslinking reactions when exposed to heat and/or UV radiation, abstract and benzophenone group page 13, line 39).
Bauer is silent on the binder polymer being in the shape of a particle. Kaneda however discloses a binder composition for that contains a particulate polymer that shows a core-shell structure and causes a secondary battery to display excellent rate and cycle characteristics (Kaneda: abstract).
Bauer and Kaneda are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely binder compositions.
In seeking a secondary battery that displays excellent rate and cycle characteristics before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply a particulate acrylic binder polymer to the organic and inorganic composite porous layer ad disclosed by Bauer as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 30, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and discloses an acrylic monomer unit containing a benzophenone functional group (Bauer: col. 13, lines 46-51).
Modified Bauer further discloses a polymer IIa which is preferably formed from the class of polyacrylates and further discloses copolymerization with acrylates containing a rest group a (RGa) to obtain acrylate copolymers functionalized with RGa (Bauer: page 13, lines 32-35). According to Bauer benzophenone groups are preferred as RGa (Bauer: col 13, line 39).
Regarding claim 31, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and discloses the particulate acrylic binder polymer further comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a branched or non-branched (meth)acrylic acid monomer unit having 1 to 20 carbon atoms (Bauer: col. 22, line 3-7), a branched or non-branched (meth)acrylate monomer unit having 1 to 20 carbon atoms (Col. 19, 25-34, excluding tridecyl(meth)acrylate), an acrylonitrile monomer unit (Bauer: col. 22, line 8), a vinyl pyrrolidone monomer unit (Bauer: 5-vinyl pyrrolidone and N-vinylpyrrolidone, col. 19, lines 62-63), and a vinyl acetate monomer unit (Bauer: col. 22, line 9).
Regarding claim 35, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and discloses that the inorganic particle has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 0.1 µm to 2.0 µm. Bauer discloses the suitable solids are those with a primary particle size of 5nm to 20 µm and further discloses a that smaller sizes such as 0.01µm to 10 µm or in particular sizes ranging from 0.1 µm to 5 µm are preferred.(Bauer: col. 3, lines 60-62). The upper limit from the preferred range 5 µm is slightly higher than the required 2.0 µm, however Bauer is disclosing the primary particle diameter. The average would therefore be lower than 5 µm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Modified Bauer further discloses that the particulate acrylic binder polymer has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 0.001 µm to 10 µm (Kaneda: page 22, table 2: number average particle diameter: 145 nm (0.145 µm)) which falls within the recited range. 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).
Regarding claim 48, modified Bauer discloses a separator according to claim 29 and further discloses an electrochemical device (Bauer: electrochemical cell, abstract) and indirectly discloses the electrochemical device comprising a cathode, an anode, and a separator between the cathode and the anode by disclosing the separator for a lithium or lithium ion battery (Bauer: col. 1, line 7-8) and by disclosing if the novel composite is used in a separator for an electrochemical cell the composite is combined with conventional anodes and cathodes (Bauer: col. 27, lines 43-45).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Kaneda et al. (US10290873B2; Kaneda hereinafter) as applied to claim 29 and further in view of Maeda et al. (WO-2007105654-A1; “Maeda hereinafter”; US2009047500A1 is used for citations) and as evidenced by Katami et al. (JP-2022008012-A; “Katami” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 33, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and further indirectly discloses that the particulate acrylic binder polymer has a storage modulus at 50°C in a range of 20,000 Pa to 300,000 Pa. Maeda indirectly discloses this by disclosing a microparticle containing a viscoelastic layer (abstract). The storage module is an intrinsic material property that depends on the polymer composition. 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). Additionally, Katami discloses a storage modulus for a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer at 50°C of 10 kPa or more and less than 100 kPa (Katami: page 12) and discloses respective compositions in table 1.
Claims 34 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Kaneda et al. (US10290873B2; Kaneda hereinafter) as applied to claim 29 and as evidenced by Asano et al. (WO 2018047903 A1; Asano hereinafter).
Regarding claim 34, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and discloses that the setting of a desired glass transition temperature by balancing hard and soft components of the polymer, are known to the skilled worker (Col. 20, Lines 41-43). Optimizing the composition to achieve a glass transition temperature in a range of -70°C to 70°C, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Bauer is silent on the gel fraction range.
Modified Bauer fails to disclose that the particulate acrylic binder polymer has a gel fraction in a range of 10% to 90%. The gel fraction is representative of the number of crosslinked/cured polymers. Optimize the composition and reaction conditions to achieve a gel fraction within the disclosed range low gel fraction rates decrease cohesion and durability whereas high gel fraction rates cause cohesive forces to increase resulting in a decrease of adhesive forces (Asano page 15).
Asano discloses the influence of the amount of the photopolymerization initiator and discloses that the curing rate tends to decrease if too little photopolymerization initiator is added (Asano page 14) and discloses that the gel fraction is preferably 10 to 100% by weight, particularly 30 to 90% by weight, particularly 50 to 80% by weight from the viewpoint of durability and adhesive strength (Asano page 15).
Modified Bauer discloses a peel strength between the porous polymer substrate, and the organic and inorganic composite porous layer is in a range of 5 gf/15 mm (3.269 N/m) to 1000 gf/15 mm (654 N/m (8 N/m, Kaenda: Col. 27, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 39, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and indirectly discloses a heat shrinkage rate after the separator is left at 135°C for 30 minutes is 10% or less in a machine direction (MD) and 10% or less in a transverse direction (TD). Modified Bauer discloses that the separator has dimensional stability at high temperature (>150° C) (Bauer: Col. 2, line 27-28)). Furthermore, Asano discloses an adhesive having excellent thermal stability and excellent moisture and heat resistance (abstract) and discloses how the thermal stability can be optimized by adapting the composition.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Kaneda et al. (US10290873B2; Kaneda hereinafter) as applied to claim 29 and further in view of Toyoda et al. (KR20140045952A; “Toyoda” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 36, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 29 and further discloses an organic and inorganic porous layer (abstract) but fails to disclose that this layer further comprises a non-particulate binder polymer. Toyoda discloses a porous film for secondary batteries containing non-conductive particles and water-soluble polymer and further discloses a viscosity adjusting agent (Toyoda, page 15).
Modified Bauer and Toyoda are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, separators for electrochemical cells and their composition.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the viscosity adjusting agent disclosed by Toyoda to the slurry composition disclosed by Bauer as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Kaneda et al. (US10290873B2; Kaneda hereinafter) as applied to claim 36 and further in view of Toyoda et al. (KR20140045952A; “Toyoda” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 37, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 36 but fails to disclose that the non-particulate binder polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of carboxy methyl cellulose, polyacrylic acid, and polyacrylamide. Toyoda discloses carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Toyoda: page 16).
Regarding claim 38, modified Bauer discloses the separator as recited in claim 36 but fails to disclose a weight ratio of the inorganic particles and the particulate acrylic binder polymer is in a range of 99.9:0.1 to 70:30 (1-99% solid and 99-1% of the binder, abstract).
Modified Bauer fails to disclose wherein a weight ratio of the particulate acrylic binder polymer, and the non-particulate binder polymer is in a range of 5:95 to 95:5.
Toyoda discloses the quantity of a viscosity modifier and discloses it is 0.1, preferably 0.2 weight part or more with respect to 100 weight part of non-electroconductive particles. Toyoda further discloses it is usually less than 10 and more preferably less than 5 weight parts or less. 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). Toyoda further discloses that by making the quantity of a viscosity modifier more than the lower limit of the said range, the intensity strength of the porous film of this invention can be made high, and if it is below an upper limit, the flexibility of the porous film of this invention can be made favorable.
Claims 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) as applied to claim 41 and further in view of Maeda et al. (WO-2007105654-A1; “Maeda hereinafter”; US2009047500A1 is used for citations).
Regarding claim 44, modified Bauer discloses the method of claim 41, and discloses wherein a content of the first acrylic monomer unit is 500 ppm to 20,000 ppm based on a weight of the second acrylic monomer. Bauer discloses that the polymeric binder contains 1 to 100% by weight of a polymer or copolymer (IIa) (this is the copolymer which includes the benzophenone functional group first crylic monomer unit) and from 0 to 99% by weight of at least one polymer or copolymer (IIb) (the second acrylic monomer unit)(Bauer: abstract).The range of 1% -100% partially overlaps the required range of 500 ppm to 20000ppm or 0.05%-2%. 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) and further the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941).
Regarding claim 46, Bauer discloses the method of claim 40. Bauer is silent on a change rate of a storage modulus of the particulate acrylic binder polymer at 50°C before irradiation with ultraviolet rays and the storage modulus of the particulate acrylic binder polymer after irradiation with ultraviolet rays is in a range of 20% to 300%. The irradiation with UV light causes the polymers to crosslink which would necessarily increase the mechanical stability of the material. Bauer further discloses that the crosslinking time can be controlled to achieve partial or complete crosslinking (Col. 26, lines 20-24). The crosslinking time and amount of crosslinker can be optimized to achieve the 20% to 300% rate of change.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) as applied to claim 40 and further in view of Maeda et al. (WO-2007105654-A1; “Maeda hereinafter”; US2009047500A1 is used for citations).
Regarding claim 47, Bauer discloses the method of claim 40 and indirectly discloses an irradiation amount of the ultraviolet rays is in a range of 0.1 J to 10 J, wherein a wavelength of the ultraviolet rays is in a range of 200 nm to 400 nm, and wherein a wavelength of the ultraviolet rays is in a range of 230 nm to 350 nm by disclosing crosslinking the laminate film for 5 minutes at a distance of 5 cm in a field of superactinic fluorescent tubes (TL 09, Philips, Bauer: col. 30, lines 8,9). Bauer further discloses that the exposure time can be controlled to achieve a full or a partial degree of crosslinking (Bauer: col. 26, lines 20-25) and thus the irradiation amount can be controlled. Additionally, Maeda discloses that the dose of the ultraviolet ray is about 200 to 3000 mJ/cm (0.2 to 3) (Maeda: [0139]) which lies within the claimed range.
Modified Bauer and Maeda are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely curing of microparticle containing viscoelastic compositions via UV-light.
In seeking a microparticle containing layer with excellent adhesion strength at high temperature before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the irradiation amount according to Madea as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) as applied to claim 40 and as evidenced by Katami et al. (JP-2022008012-A; “Katami” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 45, Bauer discloses the method of claim 40 and indirectly discloses that the non-crosslinked particulate acrylic binder polymer has a storage modulus at 50°C before the irradiation with ultraviolet rays in a range of 10,000 Pa to 80,000 Pa by disclosing the binder polymer composition according to claim 40. The storage module is an intrinsic material property that depends on the polymer composition. 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). Additionally, Katami discloses a storage modulus for a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer at 50°C of 10 kPa or more and less than 100 kPa (page 12) and discloses respective compositions in table 1.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 6,632,561 B1; “Bauer hereinafter”) in view of Maeda et al. (WO-2007105654-A1; “Maeda hereinafter”; US2009047500A1 is used for citations) as applied to claim 41 and further in view of Simal et al. (US 20140072817 A1; “Simal hereinafter”).
Regarding claim 42, Bauer discloses the method of claim 41 and further discloses a second acrylic monomer unit. Bauer example 21 (Bauer: col. 10), shows a polymer comprising a first monomer unit and a second monomer unit comprising (a) a branched or non-branched (meth)acrylic acid monomer unit having 1 to 20 carbon atoms (Bauer: col. 22, line 3-7), a branched or (b) a non-branched (meth)acrylate monomer unit having 1 to 20 carbon atoms (Bauer: col. 19, 25-34, excluding tridecyl(meth)acrylate), and one or more selected from the group consisting of an acrylonitrile monomer unit(Bauer: col. 22, line 8), a vinyl pyrrolidone monomer unit (Bauer: 5-vinyl pyrrolidone and N-vinylpyrrolidone, col. 19, lines 62-63), and a vinyl acetate monomer unit (Bauer: col. 22, line 9).
Additionally, Simal discloses the synthesis of a polymer composition and the composition (Simal: page 3, table 1) and discloses a composition consisting of methacrylate acid, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and vinyl acetate in table 1 and discloses the use of benzophenone as UV activated species (Simal: claim 12, [0027]).
Bauer and Simal are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymer compositions for coatings.
In seeking a method for a coating a polymer composition polymers too form a coating that exhibits excellent alkaline resistance and adhesion on unpolar substrates before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to follow the synthesis disclosed by Sima to obtain as second acrylic monomer unit as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights