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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Nakazawa and Lee fail to teach the structure of claim 1 which requires that the polyolefin undergoes a condensation reaction before incorporation, nor does Antoon make obvious said structure. Here, this argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “the functional groups comprise functional groups capable of undergoing a condensation rection with each other in the electricity storage device to firm a crosslinked structure by a siloxane bond”. This language does not expressly require that the polyolefin undergoes a condensation reaction before incorporation, but rather that the functional groups are capable of said reaction. Accordingly, all that is required for prior art to read upon the claim is that the prior art teach or make obvious that the polyolefin comprise functional groups capable of forming crosslinked structure by a siloxane bond, as where conditions inside the electricity storage device can be controlled, functional groups that are capable of undergoing the claimed condensation reaction would be capable of said reaction inside the electricity storage device.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that in regards to the island structure feature, the island structure feature of the present invention is realized by adjusting Mv ranges and blending ratios, where Antoon does not discuss said parameters, and that even on the basis of filler diameter of Antoon, the island structure of the present invention would not be envisioned. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Antoon does not recognize Mv ranges or blending ratios, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, the applicant asserts that the claimed invention exhibits unexpected results, presenting that the present invention suppresses the thermal runaway upon local short circuit, improving safety, as well as controlled island structures trapping HF in the battery, suppressing degradation of the positive electrode and electrolytic solution. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the applicant has not pointed to specific results that demonstrate unexpected results in comparison with the closest prior art, as is required by MPEP 716.02. Here, the applicant has the burden to establish that the results are both unexpected and significant (MPEP 716.02(b)(I)), and explaining proffered data (MPEP 716.02(b)(II)). In the arguments presented by the applicant, the applicant has not presented any explanation that the results are significant, and has not explained any proffered data. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
Additionally, in regards to the a/b/c feature of the polyolefin resin, the applicant’s arguments are moot, as said feature is addressed in the rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4-14, and 43-46 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 1 is indefinite as a result of the limitation “a content of the resin a is…” in paragraph 3 of the claim. Here, this limitation is indefinite as the resin a inherently has a content, and it is therefore unclear if the language is referring to a total content, or some other content, such as a sub-section.
Additionally, claim 1 is indefinite as a result of the limitation “a content of the resin b is…” in paragraph 4 of the claim. Here, this limitation is indefinite as the resin b inherently has a content, and it is therefore unclear if the language is referring to a total content, or some other content, such as a sub-section.
Additionally, claim 1 is indefinite as a result of the limitation “a content of the resin c is…” in paragraph 5 of the claim. Here, this limitation is indefinite as the resin c inherently has a content, and it is therefore unclear if the language is referring to a total content, or some other content, such as a sub-section.
Additionally, dependent claim(s) 4-14 and 46-46 are rejected as the result of their dependence on the indefinite claim(s), as set forth above, as they include all the limitations of said indefinite claim(s) and as they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (WO 2017086466 A1 with equivalent US 20200259148 A1 used for citation purposes), in view of Lee (US 20200006737 A1) and further in view of Antoon (US 5011698 A) and in view of Lee-924 (US 2003/0031924 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakazawa discloses a separator for an electricity storage device (Abstract, “This separator for electricity storage devices”) which comprises at least each one of layer A, where layer A is a microporous membrane containing a polyolefin containing a polyolefin (Paragraph 0055, “The substrate to be used for the embodiment of the invention may be any one that has been used as a separator in the prior art. The substrate is preferably a porous film or porous filler layer that has fine pore diameters, and that is ion-conductive without electrical conductivity, and has high resistance to organic solvents. Examples of such porous films include microporous films composed mainly of polyolefin-based resins”), layer B contains inorganic particles (Paragraph 0077, “The filler porous layer comprises an inorganic filler”), and layer C contains a thermoplastic polymer (Paragraph 0026, “A separator for an electricity storage device comprising a porous substrate and a thermoplastic polymer layer”).
Additionally, Nakazawa discloses that the polyolefin contained in layer A has one or more types of functional groups (Paragraph 0055, “Examples of such porous films include microporous films composed mainly of polyolefin-based resins (for example, polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutene and polyvinyl chloride) or mixtures or copolymers thereof, microporous films composed mainly of resins such as polyethylene terephthalate, polycycloolefin, polyethersulfone, polyamide, polyimide, polyimideamide, polyaramid, polycycloolefin, nylon and polytetrafluoroethylene, and woven polyolefin-based fibers (woven fabrics), nonwoven fabrics of polyolefin-based fibers, and aggregates of insulating material particles.”),
However, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the functional groups comprise functional groups capable of undergoing a condensation reaction in the electricity storage device to form a crosslinked structure by a siloxane bond, Nakazawa fails to disclose said structure.
Therefore, we look to Lee, which discloses a separator which comprises a crosslinked polyolefin layer (Abstract, “A separator, a method of manufacturing the same, and a lithium secondary battery including the same are disclosed herein. In some embodiments, a separator includes a non-crosslinked polyolefin layer; and a crosslinked polyolefin layer”). Here, Lee discloses that their polyolefin layer comprises multiple functional groups (Paragraph 0050, “The modified polyolefin (except polyolefins containing a peroxide-crosslinking bond or siloxane crosslinking bond) is a polyolefin modified with a functional group. The functional group may include a carboxylate group, acid anhydride group, amino group, or the like. Preferably, the functional group may be a maleate group, epoxy group, amino group, or the like.”), which are linked by means of siloxane bonds. Additionally, Lee discloses that their polyolefin layer components are crosslinked by siloxane bonds, for the purpose of increasing the system’s melt-down temperature (Paragraph 0009, “Therefore, among such chemical crosslinking processes, the present disclosure uses an aqueous crosslinking process, in which siloxane, or the like, is crosslinked between polymer chains (i.e. polymer chains are not crosslinked directly but crosslinked indirectly by means of siloxane, or the like) in order to accomplish the object of increasing the melt-down temperature.”). Here, where increasing the melt-down temperature improves the safety and survivability of the separator, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the condensation-capable functional groups which form a crosslinked structure by means of siloxane bonds, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the polyolefin contained in the layer A comprises, as a resin, a silane-modified polyolefin produced from a polyolefin having a viscosity-average molecular weight of 20,00 or more and 150,000 or less, this limitation is treated as a product by process limitation, where the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, as per MPEP section 2113. Here, where processes can be used to lengthen or reduce the length of a polyolefin, thereby changing its molecular weight, the instant claim only requires that resin a be a silane modified polyolefin. Accordingly, where Nakazawa discloses structure where their polyolefin comprises a silane-modified resin (Paragraph 0179), they therefore satisfy the limitation of the instant claim.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the polyolefin comprise as resin b, a silane-unmodified polyolefin having a viscosity average molecular weight of 2,000,000 or more and 9,000,000 or less Nakazawa fails to specifically teach said structure, disclosing that their polyolefins comprise a variety of polyolefins, including low-density polyethylene, medium-density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, and ultra-high density polyethylene (Paragraph 0058). Further, Nakazawa teaches that their polyolefin resin preferably has a viscosity-average molecular weight of 30,000 to 12,000,000 (Paragraph 0066, “The viscosity-average molecular weight of the polyolefin resin composing the polyolefin porous substrate is not particularly restricted, but is preferably 30,000 or greater and no greater than 12,000,000,”), citing that this allows for satisfactory moldability as well as high strength (Paragraph 0066, “If the viscosity-average molecular weight is 30,000 or greater, the melt tension during melt molding will be increased, resulting in satisfactory moldability, while the strength will also tend to be high due to entanglement between the polymers.”). Accordingly, Nakazawa discloses structure which encompasses the claimed range where 2,000,000 to 9,000,000 falls within Nakazawa’s range of 30,000 to 12,000,000, thereby constituting a prima facie case of obviousness. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation that requires that the polyolefin comprise as resin c a silane-unmodified polyolefin having a viscosity-average molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000, Nakazawa teaches the use of high density polyethylene with a viscosity average of 700,000 (Paragraph 0342, “high-density polyethylene with a viscosity-average molecular weight of 700,000, at 10.8 parts by weight,”), where high density polyethylene is a silane unmodified polyolefin.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that a content of the resin a is 3% by weight or more and 70% by weight or less based on a total solid weight of a polyolefin raw material contained in the layer A, Nakazawa fails to disclose said structure, and is silent in regards to the content ratio of silane-modified polyolefins relative to the total solid weight of a polyolefin raw material contained in the layer A. Therefore, we look to Lee-924, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards polyolefin based resin separators (Paragraph 0017). Here, Lee discloses a resin raw material weight ratio of 70 to 99 weight percent of polypropylene and 1 to 30 weight percent of a component which may comprise a silane group grafted polyolefin (Paragraph 0036). Based on the disclosure of Lee representing a known expectation of success in the art for the combination of silane unmodified polyolefins and silane modified polyolefins, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a weight percentage of 1 to 30 weight percent for the resin a, based on a total solid weight of a polyolefin raw material contained in the layer A. Accordingly, where this range overlaps with the range of the instant claim, which is 3 to 70 weight percent, it constitutes a prima facie case of obviousness."[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that a content of the resin b is 3% by weight or more and 70% by weight or less based on a total solid weight of a polyolefin raw material contained in the layer A, where Nakazawa makes the presence of a resin b prima facie obvious, and where they disclose the presence of multiple sizes of polyolefins in regards to viscosity-average molecular weight (Paragraph 0066), Nakazawa further teaches using a mixture of a polyolefin with a molecular weight of 2,000,000 and a molecular weight of 270,000 (Paragraph 0067). Accordingly, where Nakazawa teaches the benefits of polyolefin ingredients with specific molecular weights, they therefore make obvious the limitation of the instant claim, as one would achieve said content range in the course of routine experimentation, balancing the benefits of different weight polyolefin resins.
Additionally, Nakazawa teaches that a content of the resin c is 10.8% parts by weight based on a total weight of the polyolefin raw material contained in the layer A (Paragraph 0342), thereby making obvious said content in the course of routine experimentation, as discussed above.
Additionally, in regards to the limitations of the instant claim which requires structure wherein one or more island structures containing an alkali metal and/or an alkaline earth metal are detected when TOF-SIMS measurement is carried out on layer A over an area of 100 pm square, and the size of the island structure has a region of 9 μm2 or more and 245 μm2 or less, Nakazawa discloses that the polyolefin comprises calcium stearate and other inorganic particles (Paragraph 0068, “The polyolefin porous substrate of the embodiment may also contain optional additives. Such additives are not particularly restricted and examples include polymers other than polyolefins; inorganic particles; phenol-based, phosphorus-based and sulfur-based antioxidants; metal soaps such as calcium stearate”), where calcium stearate is an alkaline earth-metal containing composition. However, Nakazawa fails to disclose the particle size of said particles. Therefore, we look to Antoon, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a separator composition comprising polyolefins and inorganic additives (Abstract, “A soft, flexible, microporous film is provided having high tensile strength and good air and water vapor transmission rates therethrough while being substantially impenetrable to liquid water. This film is prepared by stretching a casting of a composition of a polyolefin and high levels of CaCO.sub.3 or glass beads and calcium stearate in two directions from 1.5-7 times in each direction to produce a film having a Gurley porosity of from 0.1 to 85 seconds.”; Abstract, “When glass beads are substituted for the CaCO.sub.3, the film is useful for battery separators.”).
Here, Antoon discloses the use of inorganic glass beads coated in calcium stearate, where the calcium stearate particles assist in the uniform dispersion of the particles, allowing for an effective stretching of their separator to a high degree of orientation (Column 2 lines 57-62, “Processing aids, preferably calcium stearate, coat the filler particles, thus assisting in the uniform dispersion of the filler particles thereby allowing the composition to be stretched to a high degree of orientation.”).
Additionally, Antoon discloses that their coated beads have an average particle size of 12.5 microns (Column 3 lines 47-54, “In the present invention, it has been found that fillers of particle size ranging from 10 to 25 micrometers in mean diameter are preferred over smaller particle size fillers in order to attain the high breathability of the instant film. The preferred particle size of the calcium carbonate filler is about 12.5 micrometers mean diameter.”), which is equivalent to an average area of 78.54 square microns, where the calcium-stearate coated glass beads are the island structures.
Accordingly, based on these benefits, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to implement the calcium-stearate coated glass beads of Antoon as the method of applying the calcium stearate disclosed by Nakazawa, which would result in structure which would satisfy the results of the scanning method of the instant claim, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Additionally, where Antoon discloses that the particle size of their filler particles is 12.5 microns (Column 3 lines 47-54, “In the present invention, it has been found that fillers of particle size ranging from 10 to 25 micrometers in mean diameter are preferred over smaller particle size fillers in order to attain the high breathability of the instant film. The preferred particle size of the calcium carbonate filler is about 12.5 micrometers mean diameter.”) this therefore means that the minimum distance between centers of gravity of the island region must therefore be equal to twice the radius of said particles, which is therefore 12.5 microns. Additionally, Antoon discloses that the glass bead filler is uniformly applied to the surface of the polymer (Column 2 lines 57-61, “Processing aids, preferably calcium stearate, coat the filler particles, thus assisting in the uniform dispersion of the filler particles thereby allowing the composition to be stretched to a high degree of orientation.”) and that the mass content of the glass beads is preferably 65 weight percent of the composition (Column 3 lines 3-5, “In the polypropylene/glass beads system, the amount of the filler should be in the range of 55 to 65% by weight of the composition, preferably 65%”). Here, where the glass beads make up 65% by weight/mass of the composition, the average glass bead would therefore be directly adjacent to another glass bead during the initial deposition of the glass beads being 12.5 microns apart between associated centers of gravity. Here, where Antoon discloses that the stretching of the polyolefin separator is 5 times (Column 2 lines 67-69 Column 3 line 1, “The biaxial orientation of the film should be in the range of from 4 to 7 times in each direction, preferably 5 times”), the average distance between centers of gravity of island regions is therefore 65 microns, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Nakazawa and Antoon both disclose and make obvious structure making use of calcium stearate, where accordingly the alkaline earth metal present is calcium.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Nakazawa discloses structure wherein the filler porous layer comprises an inorganic filler and a resin binder (Paragraph 0077, “The filler porous layer comprises an inorganic filler and a resin binder.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Nakazawa discloses structure where the content of the inorganic particles in layer B is from 90 weight percent to 99 weight percent (Paragraph 0086, “The proportion of the inorganic filler in the filler porous layer [is] most preferably between 90 weight % and 99 weight %, inclusive.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally Nakazawa discloses structure wherein the inorganic particles are at least one selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titanic, zirconia, magnesia, ceria, yttria, zinc oxide and iron oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride and boron nitride, silicon carbide, aluminum hydroxide oxide, talc, kaolinite, dickite, nacrite, halloysite, pyrophyllite, montmorillonite, sericite, mica, amesite, bentonite, asbestos, zeolite, diatomaceous earth and quartz sand; and glass fibers (Paragraph 0079, “the inorganic filler is not particularly restricted, and examples include oxide-based ceramics such as alumina, silica, titanic, zirconia, magnesia, ceria, yttria, zinc oxide and iron oxide; nitride-based ceramics such as silicon nitride, titanium nitride and boron nitride; ceramics such as silicon carbide, calcium carbonate, magnesium sulfate, aluminum sulfate, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide oxide, potassium titanate, talc, kaolinite, dickite, nacrite, halloysite, pyrophyllite, montmorillonite, sericite, mica, amesite, bentonite, asbestos, zeolite, calcium silicate, magnesium silicate, diatomaceous earth and quartz sand; and glass fibers. They may be used alone, or more than one type may be used together.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Nakazawa discloses structure wherein the thermoplastic polymer contained in layer C includes a methacrylic acid ester monomer unit as a polymerization unit (Paragraph 0166, “Among these, (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units with cycloalkyl groups and (meth)acryloyloxy groups are preferred,”).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Nakazawa discloses structure where the ratio of an area in which layer C covers layer B is 5% to 95% (Paragraph 0103, “According to the embodiment, the area ratio of the thermoplastic polymer layer with respect to the total area of the surface of the porous substrate or filler porous layer on which the thermoplastic polymer layer is disposed, is preferably no greater than 100%, 95%, 80%, 75% or 70%, and the same area ratio is preferably at least 5%, 10% or 15%”), further disclosing specific embodiments which have a coating area of 60% as disclosed in their table 10.
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that a thermal response index is obtained when the separator is heated to 150 degrees Celsius at 2 degrees Celsius per minute, and that the thermal response index is fitted to formula 1 using the least squares approximation method, where the range of a rate is 3.5 ≤ rate ≤ 150, this limitation represents a product by process. Accordingly, it is only required that the properties that the claim requires be able to be demonstrated by the separator if it would be subject to the process, not that the prior art specifically discloses the process. Accordingly, where it is possible to heat the separator to acquire a thermal response index, the instant claim would therefore be satisfied by any separator that satisfies the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, where the instant claim requires that the thermal response index is fit to formula 1 using the least squares approximation method, wherein max corresponds to a convergence value of the thermal response index, T0 corresponds to an inflection point of the thermal response index, T is a temperature of the separator, and the rate is a gradient of the thermal response index, the quality of the fit is not specified. Accordingly, any quality of fit could be used to satisfy the limitation of the claim and any max, T0 and T values could be used to satisfy a fit.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that a thermal response index is obtained when the separator is heated to 150 degrees Celsius at 2 degrees Celsius per minute, and that the thermal response index is fitted to formula 1 using the least squares approximation method, where the range of a T0 is 110 ≤ T0 ≤ 150, and the range of max is 0.1 ≤ max ≤ 30 this limitation represents a product by process. Accordingly, it is only required that the properties that the claim requires be able to be demonstrated by the separator if it would be subject to the process, not that the prior art specifically discloses the process. Accordingly, where it is possible to heat the separator to acquire a thermal response index, the instant claim would therefore be satisfied by any separator that satisfies the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, where the instant claim requires that the thermal response index is fit to formula 1 using the least squares approximation method, wherein max corresponds to a convergence value of the thermal response index, T0 corresponds to an inflection point of the thermal response index, T is a temperature of the separator, and the rate is a gradient of the thermal response index, the quality of the fit is not specified. Accordingly, any quality of fit could be used to satisfy the limitation of the claim and any rate values could be used to satisfy a fit.
Regarding Claim 43, Modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Nakazawa discloses structure wherein the polyolefin having the functional groups is not a master batch resin containing a dehydrating condensation catalyst which forms a crosslinked structure of the functional groups, instead disclosing that it is composed of high-density polyethylene which has been produced by means of a catalyst before implementation into the separator (Paragraph 0059, “The material of the polyolefin porous substrate to be used as the separator for an electricity storage device is most preferably a resin composed mainly of high-density polyethylene, for its low melting point and high strength. Two or more different types of these polyethylenes may also be used in combination to impart flexibility. The polymerization catalyst used for production of the polyethylene is not particularly restricted, and examples include Ziegler-Natta catalysts, Phillips catalysts and metallocene-based catalysts.”).
Regarding Claim 44, Nakazawa discloses an electricity storage device assembly kit, disclosing an exterior housing a laminated body which is a wound body of the electrodes and the separator according to claim 1, as well as the addition of a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0268, “The separator of the embodiment can be produced by first fabricating longitudinally shaped separators each with a width of 10 to 500 mm (preferably 80 to 500 mm) and a length of 200 to 4,000 m (preferably 1,000 to 4,000 m), laminating the separators in the order: positive electrode-separator-negative electrode-separator, or negative electrode-separator-positive electrode-separator, winding the laminate into a circular or flat spiral form to obtain a wound body, and inserting the wound body into a battery can and further injecting an electrolytic solution into it.”). Here, where Nakazawa discloses the addition of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution, the solution must therefore be contained elsewhere prior to addition.
Regarding Claim 45, Nakazawa discloses an electricity storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, the separator for an electricity storage device according to claim 1, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0262, “Nakazawa discloses an electricity storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode”; Paragraph 0262, “and examples include batteries such as non-aqueous electrolytic solution secondary batteries”).
Regarding Claim 46, Nakazawa discloses an electricity storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, the separator for an electricity storage device according to claim 1, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0262, “Nakazawa discloses an electricity storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode”; Paragraph 0262, “and examples include batteries such as non-aqueous electrolytic solution secondary batteries”), where the positive electrode is a lithium iron phosphate, a lithium cobaltate, or a lithium manganate (Paragraph 0264, “and the positive electrode active material may be a lithium-containing complex oxide such as LiCoO2, LiNiO2, spinel LiMnO4 or olivine-type LiFePO4,”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Lee, Antoon, and Lee-924 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Toyoda (US 20190379048 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 6. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that a glass transition temperature of the resin binder is from -50 to 90 degrees Celsius, Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose the use of binders with said attributes, disclosing specific examples which comprise higher glass transition temperatures (Paragraph 0088, “Specific examples of such resin binders include resins with melting points and/or glass transition temperatures of 180° C. or higher,”). However, Nakazawa does disclose the range of glass transition temperatures from -50 to 150 for the thermoplastic polymer (Paragraph 0202, “The glass transition temperature (Tg) of the thermoplastic polymer used for the embodiment is preferably −50° C. or higher, more preferably −30° C. or higher and even more preferably in the range of −30° C. to 150° C.”), further disclosing specific embodiments having a glass transition temperature of -20 degrees Celsius, disclosed in their table 1. Accordingly, where glass transition temperature governs a change in physical attributes, it would be obvious to
Nakazawa fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to Toyoda, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a slurry composition comprising polymer inorganic particles and polymers (Abstract, “A slurry composition for non-aqueous secondary battery functional layers contains non-conductive particles, a water-soluble polymer having an average degree of polymerization of 50 or more and 450 or less, a binder, and water.”; Paragraph 0038, “Various types of inorganic particles and organic particles can be used as the non-conductive particles.”). Here Toyoda discloses that the binder component of their composition preferably has a glass transition temperature of -50 to -10 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0085, “The binder preferably has a glass-transition temperature of 20° C. or lower, more preferably 5° C. or lower, even more preferably −10° C. or lower.”; Paragraph 0085, “Note that the glass transition temperature of the polymer used as the binder is usually −60° C. or higher, and preferably −50° C. or higher.”), stating that these glass transition temperatures result in high adhesiveness, thereby preventing layers from detaching, as well as enhancing peel strength (Paragraph 0085, “he binder having a glass-transition temperature of 20° C. or lower can have sufficiently high adhesiveness, sufficiently prevents the components included in a porous membrane from detaching from the porous membrane, as well as sufficiently enhancing the peel strength of the porous membrane.”). Here, where Toyoda’s composition has the same composition as the layer B of Nakazawa, comprising a binder and inorganic particles, and where maintaining bonding between the adjacent layers of the separator is advantageous, it would therefore be obvious to select a binder which would achieve the glass transition temperature of Toyoda to achieve said effects, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Lee, Antoon, and Lee-924 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20190221811 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Nakazawa makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Here, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the thermoplastic polymer contains at least one fluorine atom-containing vinyl compound selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) and polyvinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene (PVDF-CTFE), Nakazawa fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a separator comprising a porous polymer substrate (Abstract, “The present disclosure provides a method for manufacturing a unit cell including the steps of: preparing an electrode and a separator individually, wherein the separator includes a porous polymer substrate and a porous coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate and including a mixture of inorganic particles with a binder polymer;”). Here, Kim discloses the use of PVDF-CTFE or PVDF-HFP as preferable polymers in their composition (Paragraph 0034, “Particular examples of the binder polymer that may be used in the present disclosure may be any one selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), polyvinylidene fluoride-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene,”), disclosing that the use of said polymers provides stronger adhesion, as well as providing an increased adhesive surface for interacting with surrounding materials (Paragraph 0034, “Referring to the separator 100 shown in FIG. 1b, the porous coating layer 120 is formed on one surface of the porous polymer substrate 110 and the binder polymer 122′ present on the surface of the porous coating layer is molten by the lamination solvent so that a smoother surface of the porous coating layer may be formed. In other words, the binder polymer 122′ is converted into a status providing stronger adhesion and provides an increased adhesive surface.”). Accordingly, based on these benefits, one ordinarily skilled in the art would apply the teaching of Kim to the invention of Nakazawa, thereby making use of PTFE-CFTE or PVDF-HFP in the composition of Nakazawa, reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights