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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, and 12-13 are under examination.
Claim 11 is canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed April 8th, 2026 is acknowledged and the previous rejection(s) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al., (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0198836 A1), hereinafter Ishihara, in view of Toyota et al. (WO 2019/163935 A1 and using U.S. PGPub US 2021/0115206 A1 as Machine Translation of English version), hereinafter Toyota.
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses a polyolefin microporous membrane having a membrane thickness of 1.0 µm to 17.0 µm (see e.g. Par. [0103] whereby a membrane thickness of the polyolefin microporous membrane is preferably 3 to 15 µm, which is a range within the claimed range of a membrane thickness of 1.0 µm to 17.0 µm, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), also see e.g., [0048], [0103], [0121], [0149]-[0154]).
Ishihara further discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane is produced by the following steps:
extruding a polyolefin composition containing a polyolefin resin and a pore-forming material to form a gel-like sheet (see e.g. Par. [0038] and (a) an extrusion step of melt blending and extruding a resin composition containing a polyolefin resin and a pore-forming material, and (b) a sheet forming step of sheet forming the extrudate in said step (a) into a sheet, such that as in [0056]-[0057] said sheet is a gel-like sheet, etc., also see [0059]-[0061], [0149]-[0153]);
stretching the gel-like sheet biaxially to form a stretched sheet (see e.g. Par. [0062] whereby a gel-like sheet can be stretched by a tenter method, etc., such that as disclosed in [0063] as an example, stepwise biaxial stretching in which roll-stretching is performed in the MD direction and then stretching by a tenter method is carried out in the TD direction, etc., also see [0037], [0057], [0059], [0064], [0149]-[0153]);
extracting the pore-forming material from the stretched sheet to form a porous membrane (see e.g. Par. [0038] step (d) an extraction step of extracting the pore-forming material from the stretched sheet, etc., also see [0054], [0083], Examples 1-4, [0151]);
heat setting the porous membrane (see e.g. Par. [0083] the stretched sheet thus obtained is subjected to a conventional technique, etc., to wash and remove diluent, followed by drying, etc., which at least provides heat setting the porous membrane, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate drying said porous membrane at least provides said heat setting, lacking any further distinction thereof, also see [0152] with regards to heating said dried sheet, etc.); and
Ishihara further discloses in [0152] the obtained dried sheet was heated to 132°C in a re-stretching device, re-stretched to have a lateral magnification of 1.7 times with respect to the entrance width of the re-stretching device, etc., which at least provides values that are within the claimed range(s) of the step (D) includes a stretching operation in which the porous membrane is stretched at a temperature of 110°C or higher and 170°C or lower (i.e., at least 132°C), and a stretch ratio of 1.1 times or greater in the longitudinal direction and/or width direction (TD) orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the porous membrane (i.e., at least 1.7 times), thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2133.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
However, Ishihara appears silent as to fine stretching the porous membrane in the MD, and wherein fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E).
Toyota teaches a porous polyolefin film (Title). Toyota further teaches in [0086]-[0089] the dried microporous film may be stretched again (re-drawn), etc., which is commensurate in scope with step (E), lacking any further distinction thereof as to fine stretching. Toyota further teaches the temperature during re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, more preferably a temperature of (Tcd-20°C) to the melting point, and specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc. Toyota further teaches in [0046] a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher in view of the balance between shutdown temperature and porosity, such that a film melting point of 133°C or higher provides excellent shutdown property as well as excellent porosity, and the film melting point is preferably 137°C or lower, etc., such that a film melting point of 137°C or lower will make it easier to keep the balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, and can improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity, etc. Therefore, since Toyota teaches re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, whereby specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc., and further teaches a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher and a film melting point of 137°C or lower, this at least provides a range (i.e., 137°C - 70°C to 133°C - 135°C = 67°C to -2°C) fine stretching is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Toyota further teaches in [0089] the draw ratio during re-drawing in uniaxial stretching is preferably 1.01 to 1.6 in either the MD or the TD, etc., which at least provides a range of percentages (i.e., fine stretching from 1% to 60%) that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Toyota further teaches in [0089] stretching to a draw ratio within the above range can increase the porosity and the permeability, while stretching to a draw ratio of not less than 1.6 causes a film to be more oriented and to increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ishihara with the teachings of Toyota, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane as disclosed by Ishihara further includes the fine stretching from 1% to 60% and the fine stretching is carried out at a temperature range as discussed above as taught by Toyota so as to increase the porosity and the permeability, increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature, as well as balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, so as to improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity.
Although the combine teachings of Ishihara and Toyota are silent as to the flexural modulus and basis weight-equivalent puncture strength, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, and further discloses in [0107] and Table 3 a pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values) (also see e.g. Claim 3 below with regards to said puncture strength value(s) within the claimed range), properties and/or functions such as a flexural modulus of 0.3 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 to 1.5 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 which is a value obtained by dividing a flexural rigidity (gf×cm2/cm) in a longitudinal direction (MD) by the cube of the membrane thickness (µm); and a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength of 70 gf/(g/m2) to 160 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above), properties and/or functions such as a flexural modulus of 0.3 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 to 1.5 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 which is a value obtained by dividing a flexural rigidity (gf×cm2/cm) in a longitudinal direction (MD) by the cube of the membrane thickness (µm); and a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength of 70 gf/(g/m2) to 160 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara and Toyota discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Although the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota are silent as to the basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2), as established in response to claim 1, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, and further discloses in [0107] and Table 3 a pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values) (also see e.g. Claim 3 below with regards to said puncture strength value(s) within the claimed range), properties and/or functions such as the basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2) are presumed inherent lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above), properties and/or functions such as a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses the pin puncture strength as discussed above in claim 1, whereby as disclosed in [0107] and Table 3 the pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values within the claimed range), which is/are value(s) within the claimed range of a puncture strength of 300 gf to 950 gf, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 4, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in [0108] the tensile rupture strength is preferably 180 MPa or more either in the MD direction and in the TD direction, etc., whereby as shown in Table 3 Example 1, for example, the tensile rupture strength is 256/219 MPa for MD/TD, which at least provides values of 2610 kgf/cm2 and 2233 kgf/cm2 (i.e., at a ratio of 1.16 for MD/TD), thereby providing tensile strength values within the claimed range of 1000 kgf/cm2 or greater in each of the MD and TD, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 5, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in [0108] the tensile rupture strength is preferably 180 MPa or more either in the MD direction and in the TD direction, etc., whereby as shown in Table 3 Example 1, for example, the tensile rupture strength is 256/219 MPa for MD/TD, which at least provides values of 2610 kgf/cm2 and 2233 kgf/cm2 (i.e., at a ratio of 1.16 for MD/TD), thereby providing a MD/TD tensile strength ratio within the claimed range of a ratio (MD/TD tensile strength ratio) of the tensile strength in the MD to the tensile strength in the TD is 0.8 to 1.20, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in Table 3 Examples 1-4 SDT (i.e., shutdown temperature) ranging from 138.2°C to 139.2°C, which are values within the claimed range of a shutdown temperature of 125°C to 150°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.). (also see [0075]-[0077], [0084]-[0087], [0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 3 (Examples 1-4)) values of the air resistance of 130 to 240 sec/100 cm3 (also see [0105]), which are values within the claimed range of an air permeability of 30 sec/100 cm3 to 250 sec/100 cm3, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 8, Ishihara and Toyota discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Although Ishihara and Toyota are silent as to a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater, as established in response to claim 1, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed above and/or below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, etc., properties and/or functions such as a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater are presumed inherent lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above in claim 1), properties and/or functions such as a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater, are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 9, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 3 (Examples 1-4)) values of the average pore size of 27.5 to 39 nm (also see [0104]), which are values within the claimed range of an average pore size of 0.010 µm to 0.080 µm, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 1 (Examples 1-4)) a content proportion of high density polyethylene from 70 to 80 % (also see [0051]), which are values within the claimed range of a proportion of polyethylene is 50% by weight to 100% by weight and a proportion of polypropylene is 0% by weight to 20% by weight, such that since no polypropylene is provided that this is at least provides 0 %, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1, and further discloses step (B) as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in [0064] the stretching magnification before the extraction of the diluent varies depending on the thickness of the gel-like sheet, but the MD stretching (MDO) by 5.0 times or more and 11.0 times or less is preferred, etc., which at least provides a stretch ratio range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a stretch ratio in the MD in the step (B) is 6 to 10, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara and Toyota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2011/0166243 A1), hereinafter Kikuchi, and further in view of Mitsuoka et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2015/0030907 A1), hereinafter Mitsuoka.
Regarding claim 12, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Ishihara is silent as to the step (D) includes carrying out a stretching operation and a relaxation operation each at least once, a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less, and a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less.
The combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota disclose the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Kikuchi teaches a microporous film and method for producing the same (Title). Kikuchi further teaches in [0080] a strain rate according to stretch in the above-mentioned hot stretching step (D) is preferably 0.10 to 1.00/sec, etc., which provides a range that is within the claimed range of a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Kikuchi further teaches in [0082] from the viewpoint of physical properties and application demanded of the microporous film according to the present embodiment, etc., by stretching at not less than two stage different temperatures, the balance between permeability and thermal shrinkage of the microporous film finally obtained is further improved.
Kikuchi further teaches in [0086] the method for producing a microporous film according to the present embodiment further comprises thermal relaxation step of thermally relaxing the film obtained at the above-mentioned step (D), etc., whereby thermal relaxation is a method for thermally shrinking the length of the stretched
film at the step (D) so that the length thereof may be shortened by approximately 5 to 50% in advance in order to prevent shrinkage in the stretch direction of the microporous film due to residual stress, thereby providing that the microporous film having a good thermal shrinkage rate tends to be obtained by this thermal relaxation, such that the proportion to shorten the length (5 to 50%) is referred to as a relaxation rate, and in the case where a roll-type stretching apparatus is used, the relaxation rate can be calculated from a difference of the rotational speed between rolls in which thermal relaxation is performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota with the teachings of Kikuchi, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as disclosed by the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota further includes carrying out a stretching operation and a relaxation operation each at least once, and a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less as discussed above and taught by Kikuchi so as to provide a balance between permeability and thermal shrinkage of the microporous film finally obtained that is further improved, as well as providing that the microporous film having a good thermal shrinkage rate tends to be obtained by this thermal relaxation.
However, and as discussed above, the combined teachings of Ichihara and Toyota and Kikuchi are silent as to a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less.
Mitsuoka teaches a polyethylene microporous membrane and process for manufacturing the same (Title). Mitsuoka further teaches in Table 2 a longitudinal relaxation speed (%/sec) of 0.8 (see e.g. Examples 1-7), which at least provides a value within the claimed range of a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Mitsuoka further teaches in [0092] in the process for producing the polyethylene microporous membrane of the present invention, it is important to heat-relax the polyethylene microporous membrane at least in the longitudinal direction, such that heat-relaxing the polyethylene microporous membrane of the present invention at least in the longitudinal direction can reduce the residual stress in the longitudinal direction that remains in the microporous membrane after stretching, reduce the waviness width, and provide good planarity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota and Kikuchi further with the teachings of Mitsuoka, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as disclosed by Ishihara and Toyota, and the stretching and relaxation operation(s) as disclosed by the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota and Kikuchi further includes a relaxation strain rate (i.e., at least longitudinal relaxation speed as discussed above) in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less so as to reduce the residual stress in the longitudinal direction that remains in the microporous membrane after stretching, reduce the waviness width, and provide good planarity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see to Page 4, filed April 8th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim(s) 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Ishihara have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection 35 U.S.C. is made in view of Ishihara and Toyota for claims
Applicant argues Pages 5-6, “Even assuming, arguendo, Ishihara discloses steps (A) to (C) among the features of claim 1, Applicant submits that after the extraction of the pore-forming agent from the stretched sheet, Ishihara describes only a drying step (see, for example Ishihara at paragraph [0083] "the stretched sheet thus obtained is subjected to a conventional technique, for example, a method described in WO 2008/016174 to wash and remove the diluent, followed by drying") and does not disclose step (D) and step (E) recited in amended claim 1. Here, the "re-stretching" step in paragraph [0083] of Ishihara does not satisfy the requirements of fine stretching as described in step (E) of amended claim 1 and is not performed after the heat setting step in step (D).”
Applicants further argue Page 7, “Furthermore, as described above, Ishihara at least fails to disclose step (E) recited in amended claim 1. Accordingly, Ishihara should be regarded as substantially equivalent to Comparative Examples 13 and 22 and thus cannot simultaneously satisfy the flexural modulus requirement and the basis weight-equivalent puncture strength requirement recited in claim 1 as amended.”
The examiner respectfully asserts that Ishihara is no longer relied upon to meet the limitations of step (E). Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claims, the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota disclose the features as claimed and as addressed in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record.
Applicants further argue Page 8, “Applicant respectfully submits that Toyota does not disclose, as specified in amended claim 1, stretching at a relatively higher temperature of 110°C or higher and 170°C or lower and at a relatively high stretch ratio of 1.1 times or greater in step (D), followed by stretching in the MD at a relatively low temperature within a temperature range of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane -70°C to the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane -30°C in the step (E). Under the Examiner's interpretation set forth in the Office Action, assuming that Toyota's thermal treatment/re-drawing (the alleged step (E) in claim 1) is carried out by multistage stretching (particularly sequential stretching), the first-stage stretching in Toyota should accordingly be interpreted as corresponding to step (D) recited in amended claim 1 instead, and the second-stage stretching in Toyota should be interpreted as corresponding to step (E) considering the further comments as follows. Although Toyota arguably describes individual temperatures and stretch ratios for re- drawing, it neither discloses nor suggests making these conditions substantially different between step (D) and step (E) as in amended claim 1. In addition, while Toyota discloses examples in which thermal treatment is carried out after plasticizer extraction without stretching, Toyota fails to teach any example in which stretching is carried out after plasticizer extraction. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art must first teach or suggest all the claim limitations. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, the combined teachings of Ishihara and Toyota disclose the features as claimed, whereby Ishihara appears silent as to fine stretching the porous membrane in the MD, and wherein fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E).
Toyota further teaches in [0086]-[0089] the dried microporous film may be stretched again (re-drawn), etc., which is commensurate in scope with step (E), lacking any further distinction thereof as to fine stretching.
Toyota further teaches the temperature during re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, more preferably a temperature of (Tcd-20°C) to the melting point, and specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc. Toyota further teaches in [0046] a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher in view of the balance between shutdown temperature and porosity, such that a film melting point of 133°C or higher provides excellent shutdown property as well as excellent porosity, and the film melting point is preferably 137°C or lower, etc., such that a film melting point of 137°C or lower will make it easier to keep the balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, and can improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity, etc. Therefore, since Toyota teaches re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, whereby specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc., and further teaches a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher and a film melting point of 137°C or lower, this at least provides a range (i.e., 137°C - 70°C to 133°C - 135°C = 67°C to -2°C) fine stretching is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Toyota further teaches in [0089] the draw ratio during re-drawing in uniaxial stretching is preferably 1.01 to 1.6 in either the MD or the TD, etc., which at least provides a range of percentages (i.e., fine stretching from 1% to 60%) that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Toyota further teaches in [0089] stretching to a draw ratio within the above range can increase the porosity and the permeability, while stretching to a draw ratio of not less than 1.6 causes a film to be more oriented and to increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ishihara with the teachings of Toyota, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane as disclosed by Ishihara further includes the fine stretching from 1% to 60% and the fine stretching is carried out at a temperature range as discussed above as taught by Toyota so as to increase the porosity and the permeability, increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature, as well as balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, so as to improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity.
The examiner asserts that since Toyota discloses the stretching and motivation to incorporate said stretching that is identical and/or substantially identical to that claimed, and therefore the skilled artisan would expect with proper motivation to provide said stretching so as to achieve the result as put forth by Toyota.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “thermal treatment is carried out after plasticizer extraction without stretching”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argue Page 8, “Applicant submits that Toyota's disclosure that the temperature during re-drawing is more preferably "a temperature of (Tcd - 20°C)" to "the melting point" in paragraph [0088] of English version of Toyota (emphasis added) should instead be the basis for comparison between Toyota and the claimed invention. On that basis, the re-drawing temperature range should be calculated as 113°C (133-20°C= 113°C) to 137°C. Accordingly, Toyota fails to disclose fine stretching at a low temperature as in step (E) recited in amended claim 1, i.e. a relatively low temperature within a temperature range of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane -70°C to the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane -30°C in the step (E).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, since Toyota teaches the temperature during re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, more preferably a temperature of (Tcd-20°C) to the melting point, and specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc. (emphasis added). Toyota further teaches in [0046] a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher in view of the balance between shutdown temperature and porosity, such that a film melting point of 133°C or higher provides excellent shutdown property as well as excellent porosity, and the film melting point is preferably 137°C or lower, etc., such that a film melting point of 137°C or lower will make it easier to keep the balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, and can improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity, etc. re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, whereby specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc., and further teaches a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher and a film melting point of 137°C or lower, this at least provides a range (i.e., 137°C - 70°C to 133°C - 135°C = 67°C to -2°C) fine stretching is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Moreover, the examiner asserts that Toyota at least broadly encompasses the range, whereby since Toyota teaches “the temperature during re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition” that this at least encompasses the claimed range of fine stretching is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
See the above rejection of record for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyazawa et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0260988 A1) discloses a separation membrane for redox flow secondary battery and redox flow secondary battery comprising the same, whereby as disclosed in [0067] the tensile modulus of the above described microporous membrane is preferably 200 N/cm or less. Further, it is more preferable that the aforementioned tensile modulus be 200 N/cm or less, both in the mechanical direction (hereinafter also referred to as “MD”) of the membrane, and in the direction transverse to the MD (hereinafter also referred to as “TD”). The aforementioned tensile modulus can be obtained by the method described in Examples later, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights