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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/26 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 45, 48, 74, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US5385777)
2. Regarding claims 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 45, 48, 74, Higuchi teaches coated separator (laminated porous film as a battery separator (col. 1 ln 50-55); a porous film comprising polyethylene (col. 1 ln 40-42); The observation on the surface and two cut surfaces (cross section and longitudinal section) reveals that a PP portion and a PE portion independently exist (column 8 n 16-20)
comprising a microporous film (Fine pores 3 in PP portion 1 usually measure from about 0.05 to 0.3 μm in longer diameter and from about 0.01 to 0.1 μm in shorter diameter (column 9 ln 65- column 10 ln 5)), and a coating (a porous film comprising polyethylene (col. 1 ln 40-42)), wherein the microporous film comprises primarily polypropylene (A satisfactory film having a thickness of 35 μm was obtained by molding in the same manner as in Example 1, except for changing the PP to PE weight ratio to 60:40, Example 2; PP (mp: 166° C., Mw/Mn=8.5, MI: 2.5) and low-density PE (mp: 127° C., Mw/Mn=3.8, MI: 2.1, d: 0.935) were melt-mixed at a weight ratio of 65:35, Example 5) having a melt temperature at or above 160°C (PP (mp: 166° C., Mw/Mn=8.5, MI: 2.5) , Example 5), and wherein the coating causes the separator to shutdown at a temperature lower than the temperature at which the microporous film would shrink more than 15% without any coating (The stretched film was shrunk at 100° C. to a percent shrinkage of 10%, Example 5).
3. Although Higuchi does not explicitly teach a coating, Higuchi teaches a laminated separator which comprises coating a film on another film, as a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi with a PE coating film on a PP film for the benefit of laminated porous film as a battery separator resides in that the porous film interposed between a positive pole and a negative pole functions in a normal state to prevent short-circuiting therebetween while suppressing electric resistance therebetween on account of its porous structure to maintain the battery voltage (column 1 lines 55-60).
4. Regarding claims 37 and 74, Higuchi teaches wherein the separator shuts down at a temperature less than 130°C, less than 125°C, less than 120°C, or less than 100°C (It is accepted for the time being that an SD initiation temperature is preferably from about 110° to 160° C., and more preferably from about 120 ° to 150° C (col. 2 ln 5-10). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
5. Claims 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 77 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US5385777) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US20210106952, PCT Filed: Oct. 12, 2018) in view of Shi et al. (US20170025658).
6. Regarding claims 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 77, and 80, the complete discussion of Higuchi as applied to claim 31 is incorporated herein.
7. Regarding claims 56 and 80, Sekiguchi teaches the microporous film is a monolayer microporous film comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of polypropylene (The polypropylenes contained in…the B layer are each preferably a homopolymer. The amount of the homopolymer…most preferably 100% by weight (all), based on the total weight of polypropylenes in the entire polyolefin microporous membrane [0074]) that has an average porosity greater than 30% (The porosity of the polyolefin microporous membrane is…more preferably 30% or more and 65% or less [0094]).
8. Regarding claim 62, Sekiguchi teaches wherein the microporous film is a bilayer, trilayer, or multilayer microporous film (two layers of the surface layers (B layer) of the same composition [0174]).
9. Sekiguchi teaches binder is (meth)acrylic acid ester copolymer, styrene-acrylic acid ester copolymer, acrylonitrile-acrylic acid ester copolymer [0121]. However, they are silent about the limitations of claims 51, 53, 55 and 59.
10. Shi teaches wherein the coating (a separator for a battery which has a thin, very thin or ultra-thin deposition, layer or coating [0020]) comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of polyethylene and a binder (In one embodiment, the conductive material may be disbursed in a polyethylene or polyethylene containing resin (hereinafter both are referred to as polyethylene-based) [0110]).
11. Regarding claim 51, Shi teaches wherein the coating further comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of inorganic fine particles in an amount of 10% or less or 5% or less of the total solids in the coating (it is understood that the deposition, layer, coating, or coatings may be one or more depositions, layers or coatings of inorganic material, conductive material [0022]; The conductive material may range from 2-50 wt. %. The conductive material may range from 3-30 wt. % [0110]).
12. Regarding claim 53, Shi teaches wherein the inorganic fine particles comprise a metal oxide having a particle size D50 of about 500 nm or less, about 250 nm or less, or 200 nm or less (wherein said ceramic particles comprise Al2O3 having an average particle size ranging from 0.01 μm (10 nm) to 5 μm [0138]; and most preferably 0.01 μm to 1 μm in diameter, see claim 20).
13. Regarding claim 55, Shi teaches wherein the metal oxide comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of alumina (wherein said ceramic particles comprise Al2O3 having an average particle size ranging from 0.01 μm to 5 μm [0138]; and most preferably 0.01 μm to 1 μm in diameter, see claim 20).
14. Regarding claim 59, Shi teaches wherein the average pore size of the microporous film is greater than 0.03 microns, greater than 0.04 microns, or greater than 0.045 microns (polymeric microporous membrane or substrate with pore sizes of 5 μm or less, preferably 2 μm or less, more preferably 1 μm or less, and most preferably 0.5 μm or less (see claim 29).
15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi with Sekiguchi for improvement in safety for lithium ion secondary batteries (Seguchi, [0003]), in addition to Shi’s teachings for the benefit of improving safety, cycle life, or high temperature performance of a lithium-ion battery, and high dimensional stability at elevated temperatures, or combinations thereof (Shi [0002]).
16. Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US5385777)) as applied to claim 31 in view of Zhang et al. (US 20170033346).
17. Regarding claim 64, the complete discussion of Higuchi as applied to claim 31 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about the limitations of claim 64.
18. Zhang teaches wherein the coated separator has lower pin removal force than the microporous film when the microporous film is uncoated (Example 5, which is a polymer-ceramic coated PE.sub.1/PP.sub.1/PE.sub.1 trilayer separator membrane, has a negative pin removal force. The addition of the polymer-ceramic coating may help provide the negative pin removal force, which is desirable in order to optimize battery cell yields during the winding process step in the manufacture a lithium ion rechargeable battery [0055]; A microporous separator membrane which has a negative value of pin removal force requires less force to remove a central winding pin from a wound up electrode/separator/electrode cell assembly [0052]) for the benefit of a microporous separator membrane having a low pin removal force required for optimal battery cell yields during the winding process step in the manufacture of rechargeable lithium batteries, such as rechargeable lithium ion batteries [0029].
19. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi with Zhang’s teachings for the benefit of a microporous separator membrane having a low pin removal force required for optimal battery cell yields during the winding process step in the manufacture of rechargeable lithium batteries, such as rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.
20 Claims 76 and 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US5385777)) as applied to claim 31 in view of Jeon (US20160204409).
21. Regarding claims 76 and 78, the complete discussion of Higuchi as applied to claim 31 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about the limitations of claims 76 and 78.
22. Jeon teaches wherein the coating is a water-based coating (environmentally friendly coating process that uses water or a mixture of water as the solvent in the coating slurry [0008]), wherein the binder is a polylactam polymer (a polylactam polymeric binder combined with inorganic particles in an aqueous medium [0010]) for the benefit of improved or excellent resistance to thermal shrinkage (abstract).
23. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi with Jeon’s teachings for the benefit of improved or excellent resistance to thermal shrinkage.
24 Claims 75 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US5385777) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US20210106952, PCT Filed: Oct. 12, 2018) and further in view of Jeon (US20160204409).
25. Regarding claims 75 and 79, the complete discussion of modified Higuchi as applied to claim 51 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about the limitations of claims 75 and 79.
26. Jeon teaches wherein the coating further comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of inorganic fine particles in an amount of 1% or less of the total solids in the coating (where the preferred coating formulation has a ceramic to polylactam is added in a…most preferably in the range of 0.1 to 10 weight percent compared to ceramic (see claim 7)), wherein the ratio of the size of the inorganic fine particles to the size of the polyethylene particles is 0.5:1 or less (The particles used herein to make a coating may be organic and inorganic…The particles may have an average particle size ranging from 0.05 to 5 μm in diameter, more preferably 0.02 to 4 μm in diameter [0038]).
27. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi with Jeon’s teachings for the benefit of improved or excellent resistance to thermal shrinkage (Jeon, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752