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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 27, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the term “backweb” is defined in the art to be a sheet or a substrate, as evidenced by [0047] of Mittal et al. (US PGPub 2017/0047615 A1).
The Examiner is interpreting the term “a relaxed state capability” set forth in Claim 45 to be the change from a relaxed state (e.g. the battery separator prior to being compressed) to a non-relaxed state (e.g. the compressed battery separator) in light of P19, 29-P20, 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Böhnstedt discloses in Figs. 1-2 a battery separator (C2, L28-37) comprising:
a porous membrane backweb (1, porous membrane sheet) comprising a first surface, and a second surface on an opposite side from said first surface (C3, L22-29 and 40-43);
at least one array of ribs (2, 3, 3’) comprising a first plurality of ribs (2) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) extending from said second surface (C3, L44-48);
wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (2) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) that are disposed on said second surface (C3, L44-48 and C2, L38-56).
However, Böhnstedt does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery separator comprises a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, and wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses an exemplary separator (200) comprising a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, and wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped (Figs. 7A-7B, P19).
Specifically, the exemplary separator (200) in Figs. 7A-7B of the instant specification comprises at least one array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (204) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (206) extending from said second surface, wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (204) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (206) that are disposed on said second surface (Figs. 7A-7B), wherein the said porous membrane backweb may be polyethylene comprising a thickness in the range of 125 to 250 µm (P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1)
Böhnstedt discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb (1) is preferably made from polyethylene (C3, L22-27) having a thickness of 0.25 mm (C3, L56-60), which falls within the suitable range disclosed by the instant specification, and further discloses wherein the battery separator comprising the porous membrane backweb (1) is compressible (C2, L10-27).
Thus, said porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that disclosed by the instant specification and therefore Böhnstedt discloses a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, as evidenced by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Regarding Claims 3-5, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in Figs. 1-2 wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) are equidistantly spaced apart (C2, L49-56) and wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are not equidistantly spaced apart (C2, L49-56) and therefore Böhnstedt discloses wherein said array of ribs (2, 3, 3’) comprising said first plurality of ribs (2) and said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are not equidistantly spaced apart (C2, L49-56).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in Figs. 1-2 wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) are spaced apart at a first distance; and said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are spaced apart at a second distance, wherein said first distance is not equal to said second distance (C2, L49-59).
Regarding Claim 12, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in Figs. 1-2 wherein said array of ribs (2, 3, 3’) comprise a first of one or more ribs of said first plurality of ribs (2) alternating with one or more ribs of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) (C2, L49-59).
Regarding Claim 15, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said first plurality of ribs (2) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 16, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 17, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) is parallel to said second plurality of ribs (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 19, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) is spaced apart at a distance of 13 mm (C3, L61-64), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed ranges of approximately 4 mm to approximately 18 mm, approximately 5 mm to approximately 16 mm, and approximately 6 mm to approximately 14 mm.
Regarding Claim 24, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2
a first plane formed by tips of said first plurality of ribs (2) (C3, L40-C4, L8);
a second plane formed by tips of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) (C3, L40-C4, L8);
an overall thickness in said relaxed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plate is 1.3 mm (C3, L456-60), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of no more than approximately 3.0 mm.
Regarding Claim 26, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) comprise a first rib height of 0.75 mm (C3, L56-60), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of approximately 200 µm to approximately 1.5 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittal et al. (US PGPub 2017/0047615 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein, if desired, it is possible to provide further ribs in the intermediate spaces between said first plurality of ribs (2) extending from said first surface and/or said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) extending from said second surface (C4, L22-26).
However, Böhnstedt does not disclose mini cross-ribs disposed on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface, wherein said mini cross-ribs have a height between 25 microns to 75 microns.
Mittal teaches in Fig. 1B a battery separator comprising a porous membrane backweb and an array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a first surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a positive electrode plate and a second plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a second surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a negative electrode plate, wherein the second plurality of ribs are smaller than the first plurality of ribs ([0044], [0051]).
Mittal further teaches wherein the battery separator may comprise mini cross-ribs disposed on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface in order to form a pattern that allows acid into the battery separator quickly while simultaneously allowing air to escape out of the battery separator while at the same times the mini cross-ribs are not so large as to interfere with the battery separator’s overall contact with electrode plates ([0102]), wherein said mini cross-ribs may have a height of 0.05 mm ([0045]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 25 microns to 75 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form mini cross-ribs on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface of Böhnstedt, wherein said mini cross-ribs have a height of 0.05 mm, as taught by Mittal, in order to form a pattern that allows acid into the battery separator of Böhnstedt quickly while simultaneously allowing air to escape out of the battery separator while at the same times the mini cross-ribs are not so large as to interfere with the battery separator’s overall contact with electrode plates.
Regarding Claim 18, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said first plurality of ribs (2) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2).
Moreover, Böhnstedt discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) face a positive electrode plate and consequently wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) face a negative electrode plate (C3, L40-56 and C2, L14-21) and further wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) has a height greater than said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) (Figs. 1-2 and C3, L56-60).
However, Böhnstedt does not explicitly disclose wherein said first plurality of ribs is parallel to a separator machine direction.
Mittal teaches in Fig. 1B a battery separator comprising a porous membrane backweb and an array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a first surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a positive electrode plate, wherein each of said first plurality of ribs are parallel to one another and wherein said first plurality of ribs is parallel to a separator machine direction ([0044], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said first plurality of ribs of Böhnstedt to be parallel to a separator machine direction, as taught by Mittal, as such is a known configuration in the art for a plurality of ribs extending from a first surface of a porous membrane backweb that faces a positive electrode plate and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the first plurality of ribs desired by Böhnstedt.
Claims 22 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022), as applied to Claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2
a first plane formed by tips of said first plurality of ribs (2) (C3, L40-C4, L8);
a second plane formed by tips of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) (C3, L40-C4, L8).
Modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein an overall thickness in said relaxed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plate is 1.3 mm (C3, L40-C4, L8) and therefore modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane is necessary and inherently at least greater than 0 mm and less than 1.3 mm, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least approximately 500 µm, and no more than 2.0 mm.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein compressability of the battery separator is adjusted in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use (C2, L28-37).
Moreover, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator can be influenced by the distance of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) from each other (C3, L68-C4, L8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the battery separator to have an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane that falls within the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the battery separator desired by Böhnstedt.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance of the second plurality of ribs from each other, as disclosed by Böhnstedt, such that an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane that falls within the range of at least approximately 500 µm, and no more than 2.0 mm, as such may be adjusted so as to influence the compressability of the battery separator, in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use.
Regarding Claim 45, Böhnstedt discloses a compressible battery (C2, L28-37 and 57-66), wherein compressability of the battery separator is adjusted in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use (C2, L28-37).
Specifically, Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator can be influenced by the distance of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) from each other (C3, L68-C4, L8).
However, Böhnstedt remains silent regarding a change in thickness of the battery separator from a relaxed state to a compressed state and consequently does not disclose wherein the compressible battery separator is provided with at least a 12% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability.
Though, Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator should greater than 1 to 2% in order to sufficiently compensate for the above-mentioned variations in thickness of electrode plates and battery separators (C2, L10-27) and therefore Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressible battery separator should be provided with a greater than 2% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability, which encompasses the instantly claimed range of at least 12%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance of the second plurality of ribs from each other in order to form a battery a compressible battery separator provided with a change in thickness from a relaxed state capability in the encompassing portion of the range disclosed by Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use, as desired by Böhnstedt.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein the battery separator is inserted into battery container; the battery separator and electrode plates are squeezed together to such an extent that they can be slid into appropriate compartments and firmly clamped within (C4, L44-53).
However, modified Böhnstedt does not disclose the pressure required to clamp the battery separator and electrode plates within and consequently such is not particularly limited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the compressible battery separator of modified Böhnstedt, such that it is provided with at least a 12% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability, as such is not particularly limited, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully squeeze the battery separator and the electrode plates together to such an extent that they can be slid into appropriate compartments and firmly clamped within, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Regarding Claim 46, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use (C2, L28-37).
Specifically, Böhnstedt discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 wherein said first plurality of ribs (2) are spaced apart at a distance of 13 mm from each other and wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are spaced apart 2.5 mm from each other (C3, L61-64), which falls outside the instantly claimed ranges of four millimeters to six millimeters and four millimeters to six millimeters respectively.
Consequently, Böhnstedt does not disclose in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 wherein the first plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters to six millimeters from each other, and the second plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters to six millimeters from each other.
However, Böhnstedt discloses wherein one can vary the distance apart of the first plurality of ribs (2) and the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) in order to adjust the compressibility and the recovery force (C2, L67-C3, L2).
For example, Böhnstedt discloses wherein the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) may be spaced apart about 1.2 to 4 mm from each other (C3, L2-7), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of four millimeters to six millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second plurality of ribs to be spaced apart four millimeters from each other, as disclosed by Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use, as desired by Böhnstedt.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein a ratio between the distance between one group of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) and one of the first plurality of ribs (2) is 1:2 to 1:11 (Figs. 1-2 and C3, L12-16).
The Examiner notes that when the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) are spaced apart four millimeters from each other, the first plurality of ribs (2) being spaced apart six millimeters from each other achieves to a ratio of 1:1.5, which mathematically equates to a ratio of 1:2 when rounded to the same number of significant figures disclosed in modified Böhnstedt.
In light of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the at least one array of ribs to have a ratio of 1:2, as disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, such that the first plurality of ribs are spaced apart six millimeters from each other and the second plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters from each other, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022), as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Dreyer et al. (US PGPub 2006/0141350 A1).
Regarding Claim 46, Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb (1) is preferably made from polyethylene (C3, L22-27).
However, Böhnstedt does not disclose wherein the porous membrane backweb comprises a plasticizer.
Dreyer teaches a porous membrane backweb for a battery separator comprising a polyolefin, such as polyethylene (e.g. described in cited U.S. Patent No. 3,351,495 incorporated within as reference) ([0031]).
Specifically, Dreyer teaches wherein the porous membrane backweb may comprise a plasticizer in order to render the porous membrane backweb porous ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to utilize a plasticizer, as taught by Dreyer, in order to render the porous membrane backweb porous, as desired by Böhnstedt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach that the separator comprises a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped.
The Applicant argues that Figure 7B of the present application "shows an exemplary separator in a compressed state." ([0043]). As seen therein, this compressed state causes the backweb 202 to experience warping and take on a wavy structure. And, importantly, this warped state which results in a wavy-structured backweb is not merely incidental to the present invention, but instead, a significant aspect of the novelty and inventiveness over the prior art. This distinction from the prior art is especially clear by comparison of Figs. 1-2 of Bohnstedt with Fig. 7A-7B of the present application, showing a separator in a relaxed state and a compressed state, respectively. [pg. 10, final paragraph]. Warping the separator to exhibit this wavy structure achieves significantly reduced overall thickness measurements as these ribs are strategically placed to not be opposite one another, essentially positioning each in a "wave" and thereby minimizing the distance between the two planes. This ability to significantly reduce the overall thickness of the separator via this warping and resulting wavy structure is precisely what makes the present application novel and inventive over the prior art. "[a]s of this application, the inventors know of no battery separator that is capable of providing a variable thickness that can accommodate varying and/or changing electrode spacing."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Böhnstedt does not illustrate in Figs. 1-2 wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped, the Examiner notes that the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that of the claimed invention and therefore the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt would necessarily and inherently have a wavy structure when warped, as evidenced by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
For example, the instant specification discloses an exemplary separator (200) comprising a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, and wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped, wherein the separator (200) comprises at least one array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (204) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (206) extending from said second surface, wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (204) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (206) that are disposed on said second surface (Figs. 7A-7B, P19).
The instant specification further discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb may be polyethylene comprising a thickness in the range of 125 to 250 µm (P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1).
Thus, because Böhnstedt discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb (1, porous membrane sheet) comprises at least one array of ribs (2, 3, 3’) comprising a first plurality of ribs (2) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) extending from said second surface (C3, L44-48), wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (2) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) that are disposed on said second surface (C3, L44-48 and C2, L38-56), wherein said porous membrane backweb (1) is preferably made from polyethylene (C3, L22-27) having a thickness of 0.25 mm (C3, L56-60), which falls within the suitable range disclosed by the instant specification, and wherein the battery separator comprising the porous membrane backweb (1) is compressible (C2, L10-27), the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that disclosed by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not providing any showing of how the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is different from that of the claimed invention such that it would not necessarily and inherently achieve a wavy structure when in a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped.
The Applicant argues that Böhnstedt does not disclose “shaping or curving the backweb", a "wavy" backweb, advantages associated therewith, or the like at all. In fact, as illustrated in the Table provided, the separator according to Böhnstedt exhibits a planar backweb structure. Thus, no reasonably skilled artisan would be motivated to conclude Böhnstedt discloses or otherwise modify its teachings to yield the presently claimed limitation that the separator comprises a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention. So long as the structure of the battery separator is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
Furthermore, the Examiner agrees that Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt do not illustrate the battery separate when in a different compressed state.
As stated above, because the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that of the claimed invention, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt necessarily and inherently has a wavy structure when in a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, as evidenced by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
The Applicant argues that Böhnstedt teaches against a separator taking the form of “corrugated paper” under pressure (i.e. warping to form a wavy structure as contemplated by the present claims). In fact, in describing previous separators in the prior art, Böhnstedt explicitly discusses the disadvantages of a warped, compressed state membrane. According to one embodiment the ribs are arranged so that they are staggered on both sides of the separator foil. Under pressure this type of separator between the electrode plates takes on a form similar to that of corrugated paper. The separator foil thus also comes into contact with the positive electrode plate and is therefore exposed to the danger of destructive oxidation. Due to the flexibility of the separator foil there is practically restoring force. Moreover, this previously known battery separator also has the disadvantage that it can only be manufactured in multi-stage process (C1, L46-57).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the Applicant, Böhnstedt teaches away from a battery separator having a form similar to that of corrugated paper to a degree in which the porous membrane backweb comes into contact with the positive electrode plate.
However, the Examiner notes that the claim recites “wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped” and therefore a degree of waviness or warping is not required.
For example, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt may be compressed to a degree that the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure in which the porous membrane backweb does not come into contact with the positive electrode plate, i.e. as shown in Fig. 7B of the instant specification.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claim is neither directed to the manufacturing process nor requires the battery separator to be manufactured in a single-stage process and therefore such an argument is moot.
The Applicant argues that while the presents claims do not require the backweb to exhibit a warped, wavy structure all of the time the claims still require the backweb to exhibit a warped, wavy structure at least part of the time (i.e. whenever the separator is compressed). The Applicant emphasizes that the present invention is directed to a compressible battery separator (Abstract). To this end, the Applicant emphasizes that the claim requires both a relaxed state and a compressed state. It is hard to imagine a compressible battery separator operation in which absolutely no compression or pressure is applied thereto at all. Even Böhnstedt recognizes that even inserting the battery separator into the battery itself (before operating it) results in a compression pressure (i.e. thereby requiring the separator to take on a compressed state) (P2, L22-25).
The Examiner notes that the Applicant recognizes that the battery separator of Böhnstedt has a different compressed state (P2, L22-25).
The Applicant argues that the presently amended claims do, in fact, require the porous backweb to be warped to a certain degree so as to form a wavy structure. Importantly, corrugations are alternating ridges and grooves and therefore a corrugated surface is wavy.
Furthermore, the Applicant is unclear how the cited paragraphs do not show Böhnstedt teaching away from the present claims. Applicant recognizes the separator foil having a corrugated shape was not descriptive of the separator of Böhnstedt, but rather that of disclosed prior art reference DE-PS 17 71227. Böhnstedt explicitly describes the different disadvantages associated with different separators according to other prior art references. Therefore, the Applicant submits that a reasonable skilled artisan would read Böhnstedt and understand that Böhnstedt was concerned with the oxidative destruction and lack of restorative force associated with the separator foil of DE-PS 17 71227 and reasonable conclude that Böhnstedt was warning against incorporating the corrugated separator design into its teachings to avoid these issues.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as stated above, the claim does not require a specific degree or amount of waviness or warping and therefore the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt may be compressed to a degree that the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure in which the porous membrane backweb does not come into contact with the positive electrode plate.
In other words, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt may be configured to read on the claimed invention without having the disadvantages taught by DE-PS 17 71227.
The Examiner reiterates that the Applicant has not providing any showing of how the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is different from that of the claimed invention such that it would not necessarily and inherently achieve a wavy structure when in a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped.
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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 on (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1725