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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 11-12 & 15 are amended. Claims 2, 8 & 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 & 14-21 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 & 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7 & 14-19, Noumi teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the separator comprises a crosslinked separator comprising a crosslinked polyolefin porous substrate having a crosslinking degree of 20% to 80% and which is produced by applying a Type 2 photoinitiator composition comprising a Type 2 photoinitiator such as benzophenone (BPO) and a solvent for the photoinitiator to a polyolefin substrate; and irradiating ultraviolet (UV) rays with an irradiation light dose of preferably 100 to 1000 mJ/cm2 to the polyolefin porous substrate coated with the photoinitiator composition ([0013], [0032] & [0039]-[0042], [0045] & [0051]-[0053]), wherein a content of the photoinitiator is 0.01 wt% to 1 wt% in the polyolefin porous substrate ([0043]) and wherein a content of the photoinitiator is 0.2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the solvent for the photoinitiator in a specific embodiment (Example 1). Noumi does not explicitly teach a plurality of fibrils including polyolefin chains being crosslinked directly with one another and forming pores between entangles fibrils but nevertheless discloses polyolefin molecular chains being cut by the irradiation in a surface area of the porous polyolefin substrate and then crosslinked ([0013] & [0040]) where pores would be expected to form between the entangled fibrils resulting from the crosslinking. While Noumi is silent as to the claimed properties of the inventive crosslinked separator recited in claims 2-3, 5-7 & 16-19, it is noted that Noumi similarly discloses the same method of producing the claimed crosslinked separator comprising a crosslinked porous polyolefin substrate as noted above. Accordingly, Noumi’s crosslinked would be expected to possess the properties recited in instant claims 2-3, 5-7 & 16-19. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1) in view of Modeki (US 2018/0097256 A1) and Arnold (US 2017/0170441 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Noumi teaches the crosslinked separator of claim 1 but is silent as to a first porous coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the crosslinked polyolefin porous substrate, wherein the non-crosslinked separator further comprises a second porous coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the polyolefin porous substrate before crosslinking, and the first and second porous coating layer comprise a binder polymer and inorganic particles, and has interstitial volumes among the inorganic particles that are in contact with one another, wherein the interstitial volumes are spaces defined by the inorganic particles that are in contact with one another in a packed structure of the inorganic particles, and the interstitial volumes among the inorganic particles correspond to pores of the first and second porous coating layer (claim 4) and wherein the inorganic particles are least one selected from the group recited in claim 20 (claim 20). Modeki teaches a crosslinked separator obtained by irradiating UV rays on a non-crosslinked separator comprising a porous polyolefin substrate with an applied photoinitiator composition, wherein the non-crosslinked separator comprises a porous polyolefin substrate preferably having a ceramic layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer on at least one surface of the substrate before crosslinking ([0075]-[0076], [0096]-[0102] & [0104]-[0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form a first porous coating layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer on at least one surface of the substrate in order to improve heat resistance and reduce thermal shrinkage thereby preventing short-circuiting between electrodes as taught by Modeki ([0096]-[0097]). Arnold teaches a method of manufacturing a crosslinked separator by applying a photoinitiator composition comprising a photoinitiator such as BPO, inorganic particles and a binder polymer to a porous polyolefin substrate and a irradiating with UV rays to obtain a porous coating layer comprising the inorganic particles and the binder polymer on the porous polyolefin substrate ([0099]-[0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form a porous coating layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer with the photoinitiator composition in order to strengthen and protect separators and improve the operational safety of electrochemical devices using such separators as taught by Arnold ([0097]). Accordingly, Arnold teaches the claimed first porous coating layer including inorganic particles and binder polymer disposed on at least one surface of the crosslinked polyolefin porous substrate. While Noumi as modified by Modeki and Arnold does not explicitly teach interstitial volumes among the inorganic particles that are in contact with one another, wherein the interstitial volumes are spaces defined by the inorganic particles that are in contact with one another in a packed structure of the inorganic particles, and the interstitial volumes among the inorganic particles corresponding to pores of the first and second porous coating layer, one of ordinary skill in the art, readily understands that the solvent used to form the first and second porous coating layers would evaporate when the first and second porous coating layers are dried which leaves pores in the remaining first and second porous coating layers corresponding to the claimed interstitial volumes.
Claims 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1) in view of Akita (US 2014/0335403 A1).
Regarding claims 9 & 11, Noumi teaches the same method of manufacturing the crosslinked separator of claim 1 except for the use of benzophenone as a photoinitiator instead of 2-isopropylthioxanthone as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that thioxanthone-based compounds such as 2-isopropylthioxanthone and benzophenone-based compounds are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose of functioning as photoinitiators as taught by Akita ([0076]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use 2-isopropylthioxanthone as a photoinitiator in place or in combination with the benzophenone compound described in Noumi ([0042]). “"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”. See MPEP 2144.06 I. “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1) and Akita (US 2014/0335403 A1), and further in view of Arnold (US 2017/0170441 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Noumi as modified by Akita teaches the method of manufacturing the crosslinked separator of claim 9 but is silent as to the photoinitiator composition being a composition for forming a porous coating layer and further comprising inorganic particles and a binder polymer. Arnold teaches a method of manufacturing a crosslinked separator by applying a photoinitiator composition comprising a photoinitiator such as BPO, inorganic particles and a binder polymer to a porous polyolefin substrate and a irradiating with UV rays to obtain a porous coating layer comprising the inorganic particles and the binder polymer on the porous polyolefin substrate ([0099]-[0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form a porous coating layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer with the photoinitiator composition in order to strengthen and protect separators and improve the operational safety of electrochemical devices using such separators as taught by Arnold ([0097]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1) and Akita (US 2014/0335403 A1), and further in view of Hiraoka (US 2008/0216942 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Noumi as modified by Akita teaches the method of manufacturing the crosslinked separator of claim 9 but is silent as to the type 2 photoinitiator further comprising thioxanthone (TX). Hiraoka teaches a method of manufacturing a crosslinked separator by applying a photoinitiator composition comprising a photoinitiator such as BPO or TX to a porous polyolefin substrate and irradiating with UV rays ([0068]-[0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to combine ITX and TX as art recognized equivalents for performing the same function (i.e photoinitiators). See MPEP 2144.06 I.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi (US 2010/0227223 A1), Modeki (US 2018/0097256 A1) and Arnold (US 2017/0170441 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-7 & 14-19 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0331094 A1).
Regarding claims 20-21, Noumi as modified by Modeki and Arnold teaches the crosslinked separator of claim 4 but is silent as to the inorganic particles being at least one selected from the recited groups in respective claims 20-21. Lee teaches a separator (100) comprising a porous coating layer (120) comprising inorganic particles (121) such as barium titanate (i.e BaTiO3) and/or SnO2 and a binder polymer (122) disposed on at least one surface of a porous polyolefin substrate (110) (Fig. 3; [0035] & [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use any one the claimed inorganic materials for Noumi’s modified porous coating layer as suitable inorganic material for a porous coating layer of a battery separator as taught by Lee where the porous coating layer is beneficial for protecting the separator from a risk of failure and preventing thermal shrinkage ([0004]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that Noumi fails to render obvious the claimed method of claim 9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that the irradiation light dose of 100 to 1000 mJ/cm2 used in Noumi’s vacuum ultraviolet irradiation step does not pertain to subsequent crosslinking treatment step using UV irradiation ([0040]-[0041]). As Applicant correctly notes, the vacuum ultraviolet irradiation step and the crosslinking treatment step are separate but it is noted that the crosslinking treatment step is not necessary in certain embodiments. Notwithstanding, Noumi discloses that the crosslinking treatment can be applied to the film simultaneously with the vacuum ultraviolet irradiation step ([0041]). While Example 1 of Noumi discloses the vacuum ultraviolet ray step being performed before the substrate is coated with the photoinitiator composition, when the crosslinking treatment is performed simultaneously with the vacuum ultraviolet ray irradiation, the photoinitiator composition is necessarily applied to the substrate as the vacuum ultraviolet ray irradiation step is performed. With regards to Applicant’s arguments that the physical characteristics of the claimed separator are improved by using ITX as the type 2 photoinitiator, it is noted that the physical characteristics (tensile strength, puncture strength, meltdown temperature, electrical resistance…) using a BPO-based compound as photoinitiator (Example 4) vs ITX (Examples 1-3) appear to be substantially the same and do not support applicant’s assertions of improved or unexpected results through the use of ITX (see Table 1 of instant specification). Moreover, as previously noted in the Response to Arguments on 08/21/2025, benzophenone photoinitiator used in Noumi’s invention is a solid at room temperature when the benzophenone is dissolved in heptane. Accordingly, 0.2% benzophenone in heptane is likely measured as % (w/v) or % (w/w) such that 0.2 grams of benzophenone is dissolved in 100 ml of heptane (i.e in % w/v terms) or 0.2 grams of benzophenone is dissolved in 100 grams of heptane (i.e in % w/w terms). As noted in the above rejection, if Noumi is interpreted as teaching % w/w, the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.3 parts is anticipated by Noumi. If Noumi is interpreted as teaching % w/v, 100 ml of heptane, using the known density of heptane (i.e 0.68 g/ml), can be corresponds to 68 grams of heptane. Thus, based on 100 parts by weight of heptane (i.e 68 grams), the resulting content of benzophenone is 0.29 parts which reads on the presently claimed range. Moreover, since the content of the photoinitiator is within the claimed range, the degree of crosslinking as well as the other properties of the separator such as meltdown temperature, tensile strength and puncture strength would be expected to be similar to the presently claimed invention. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 & 14-21 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727