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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not provide applicability to battery separators and therefore does not teach the claimed method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery. However, Zhu provides most of the method steps of the coating on the substrate as claimed. The claimed “separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery” is the intended use of the finished product as provided in the method of Zhu (see MPEP 2111.02 II). Therefore, while Zhu does not provide the same intended use of the composite film, Zhu still teaches the method as claimed. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look at Zhu and combined with the secondary references such as Fuji. However, Zhu and Fuji are combinable because Zhu discloses that functional additives may be included in the film (see e.g., Zhu; section 3.3) and Fuji provides that solid electrolyte particles such as LATP may be the functional additives in the film (see e.g., Fuji; [0024]).
Zhu is combined with new reference Kimura (US-20160190534-A1) to teach independent claim 6. Kimura is applied to modify Zhu to teach the air-drying step as claimed. Kimura provides a drying process for a separator which similarly comprises of cellulose wherein a warm air drying process may be performed, wherein a first drying process to evaporate water by maintaining the temperature of the liquid to less than 100° C. is performed, and a second drying process within a temperature range of about 100° C. to about 160° C., is performed (see e.g., Kimura; [0132]). This drying process makes it possible to dry the modified microfibrillated cellulose while preventing hydrogen bonds between the cellulose nanofibers, which allows pores to form (see e.g., Kimura; [0132]). Furthermore, regarding the air-drying process, the instant specification provides in the example (at [0043]) that “the resultant was air-dried to produce a separator,” which does not encompass the limitation drying at ambient temperature without applying additional heat for drying at an elevated temperature. In addition, ambient temperature may vary depending on the location. As such, “air-drying” is interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation which may be any form of drying in air (as opposed to a vacuum or in a chamber filled with another medium). In any case, Kimura provides that a first drying process, which may be through air drying, at a temperature of less than 100 °C is performed, which satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation air “air-drying” and falls within the ambient temperature range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327), and in further view of Saka (US-20170047569-A1), Kimura (US-20160190534-A1), and Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches a method for producing composite film, including: a slurry production step of mixing a dissolution liquid obtained by dissolving a polymer compound (cellulose) in an ionic liquid (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract, regarding dissolution of cellulose in hydrophilic ionic liquids such as BMIMCI and AMIMCI), with nanoparticles (see e.g., Zhu; Section 3.3, regarding functional additives dissolve/dispersed in the ionic liquids such as nanoparticles before or after dissolution of the cellulose), to produce a slurry; and replacing the ionic liquid with an organic poor solvent having a lower solubility of the polymer compound than the ionic liquid (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract, regarding the polymer compound, cellulose, can be regenerated from its ionic liquid solutions by addition of water, ethanol, or acetone; acetone, at least, may be considered as an organic poor solvent having a lower solubility of the polymer compound than the listed ionic liquids, wherein the regeneration process replaces the ionic liquid, see also Section 2). The purpose of composite film "for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery" is non-limiting because it is the intended use (see MPEP 2111.02 II).
Zhu does not explicitly disclose a gelling step of coating a surface of a substrate with the slurry to produce a coating film, to thereby produce a gelled film in which the coating film is gelled. However, Saka discloses a separator in which a slurry is coated onto a surface of a substrate to produce a coating film that is gelled (see e.g., Saka; [0081], regarding coating the slurries of the separator on to a substrate with gravure coating). Saka is further analogous art because Saka discloses that the coating of the separator includes a region of cellulose containing slurry (see e.g., Saka; [0081]-[0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhu by providing a gelling step of coating a surface of a substrate with the slurry to produce a coating film as disclosed by Saka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve electrolyte retention, improve the movement of charge carriers, and improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Saka; [0008]-[0009]).
Zhu also discloses that the regenerated cellulose polymer compound may be in the form of a film (see e.g., Section 2), wherein microwave heating may accelerate the dissolution process (see e.g., Section 2). Zhu does not explicitly disclose the specific order of air-drying the gelled film to obtain a composite film. However, Kimura provides a drying step of air-drying a gelled film to obtain a composite film (see e.g., Kimura; [0132], regarding warm air drying, with a first drying process at less than 100 °C and a second drying process of about 100-160 °C). This drying process makes it possible to dry the modified microfibrillated cellulose while preventing hydrogen bonds between the cellulose nanofibers, which allows pores to form (see e.g., Kimura; [0132]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a drying step of air-drying the gelled film to obtain a composite film as disclosed by Kimura to the method of Zhu in order to dry the cellulose, prevent hydrogen bonds between cellulose nanofibers, and allow pores to form (see e.g., Kimura; [0132]).
While Zhu discloses that functional additives may be included (see e.g., Zhu; Section 3.3), Zhu does not explicitly disclose the functional additive particles as solid electrolyte particles. However, Fuji discloses that solid electrolyte particles may be included in the solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., Fuji; [0024] regarding LATP particles). Furthermore, Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the composite film is equal to or less than an average particle size of the solid electrolyte. However, Fuji discloses that the solid electrolyte particles have a diameter larger than the thickness of the substrate such that they are exposed on both sides of the separator (see e.g., Fuji; [0016]). Fuji emphasizes forming the thin single layer of solid electrolyte particles by removing excess particles and integrating directly with the substrate (see e.g., Fuji; [0008], [0024]) and shows how the particles have a diameter that extends past the thickness of the film (see e.g., Fuji; figs 1-2). Therefore, Fuji discloses a separator wherein the average particle size of the solid electrolyte is greater than a thickness of the composite film, which corresponds with the claimed composite film being less than an average particle size of the solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator of modified Zhu by having including LATP particles as the functional additives wherein the average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles are greater than a thickness of the composite film as disclosed by Fuji in order to provide separator strength and flexibility while preventing short circuits, and ensuring high ionic conductivity (see e.g. Fuji; [0013], [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. Zhu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the composite film is 0.2 µm or more and 10 µm or less. However, Fuji discloses wherein the separator may have a thickness of 10-100 µm (see e.g., Fuji; [0015]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2-10 µm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the separator of modified Zhu to a thickness of 10-100 µm as disclosed by Fuji in order to maintain separator strength while preventing short-circuiting and having a large capacity (see e.g., Fuji; [0015]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. As described above, Zhu also teaches the polymer compound being cellulose (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein the solid electrolyte is LATP (see above regarding claim 6; Fuji; [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. The claimed “drying step causes the gelled film to contract while suppressing contraction of the polymer compound” is interpreted according to 112(f). The claim explicitly uses the term “step” followed by the functional language of “causes the gelled film to contract while suppressing contraction of the polymer compound”. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification, the claimed drying step is interpreted as an air-drying step. As above regarding claim 6, Zhu modified with Kimura provides a drying step of air-drying (see e.g., Kimura; [0132], regarding warm air drying, with a first drying process at less than 100 °C and a second drying process of about 100-160 °C). This drying process makes it possible to dry the modified microfibrillated cellulose while preventing hydrogen bonds between the cellulose nanofibers, which allows pores to form (see e.g., Kimura; [0132]). Therefore, modified Zhu teaches wherein the drying step causes the gelled film to contract while suppressing contraction of the polymer compound.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 11. Because modified Zhu teaches all the method steps in claims 6 and 11 (see above regarding claims 6 and 11), it is the examiner’s position that the properties resulting from such structure would be inherent, including wherein formation of voids between the polymer compound and the solid electrolyte are suppressed.
MPEP 2112 I. states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. Zhu discloses wherein the structure of the cellulose may be in the form of a film (see e.g., Zhu; section 2). Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is flat. However, Saka discloses wherein the substrate and separator are flat (see e.g., Saka; figs. 1, 3, showing the flat separator, [0048], regarding the separator substrate as a single-layer structure of a sheet-shaped resin material, or a structure of two or more sheet-shaped resins laminated). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhu to provide a substrate that is flat as disclosed by Saka in order to improve electrolyte retention, improve the movement of charge carriers, and improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Saka; [0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is made of a resin, glass, or a metal. However, Saka discloses wherein the substrate is made of a resin (see e.g., Saka; [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhu to provide a resin substrate as disclosed by Saka in order to improve electrolyte retention, improve the movement of charge carriers, and improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Saka; [0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein the polymer compound is a cellulose derivative (see e.g., Zhu; abstract, section 3.2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein the ionic liquid includes an alkylimidazolium salt (see e.g., Zhu; abstract, introduction, regarding 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (BMIMCl) and 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (AMIMCl) which are alkylimidazolium salts).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327), Saka (US-20170047569-A1), Kimura (US-20160190534-A1) and Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation), and in further view of Kondo (US-201917431939-A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. Zhu does not specifically teach a pore volume of the composite film is 0.06 cm3/g or less. However, Kondo discloses that the separator corresponding to the composite film may have a porosity of 30% or less, and more preferably 25% or less (see e.g., Kondo; [0056]), which overlaps with the claimed pore volume of 0.06 cm3/g or less. That is, because Kondo discloses the porosity may be 25% or less, the porosity of the composite film may be completely nonporous and overlaps with the claimed pore volume of 0.06 cm3/g or less. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator porosity of Zhu to have a porosity of 25% or less as disclosed by Kondo in order to sufficiently secure the lithium ion conduction path and improve lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., Kondo; [0056]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327), Saka (US-20170047569-A1), Kimura (US-20160190534-A1) and Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation), and in further view of Zhang (JP-2013187196-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the organic poor solvent is ethyl acetate. However, Zhang discloses a separator mixture in which CMC is combined with ethyl acetate (see e.g., Zhu; [0015], regarding example 5 preparation of organic gel for separator coating with 15% CMC and 45% ethyl acetate). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the organic poor solvent of Zhu to be ethyl acetate as disclosed by Zhang in order to improve the safety performance, circulation performance, and cell core hardness of polymer lithium-ion batteries, and to reduce strain in lithium-ion batteries by providing a separator for polymer lithium-ion batteries with high safety and mechanical performance (see e.g., Zhang; [0006]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327), Saka (US-20170047569-A1), Kimura (US-20160190534-A1) and Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation), and in further view of Yi (US-20190319300-A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6. As above regarding claim 6, modified Zhu provides replacing the ionic liquid with organic poor solvent and the substrate. Zhu provides that the addition of water, ethanol or acetone precipitates the cellulose. Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the addition is in the form of immersion, such that the ionic liquid is replaced with the organic poor solvent by immersing the substrate and coating film in the organic poor solvent. However, Yi discloses a method of forming a separator wherein the substrate including the coating is immersed into a solution for phase transformation (see e.g., Yi; [0032], [0034], [0046], [0076]). Yi is further analogous art because Yi discloses that the immersion of solvents may include a third solvent that can be one or more of water, ethanol, or acetone (see e.g., Yi; [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Zhu such that the addition of the organic poor solvent is through an immersion process as disclosed by Yi in order to undergo phase transformation (see e.g., Yi; [0032], [0034]) and improve the service life (see e.g., Yi; [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 16. Zhu does not explicitly disclose immersing the substrate and coating film in acetone before immersing in the organic poor solvent. However, Yi discloses immersing the substrate and coating film in acetone before immersing in the organic poor solvent (see e.g., Yi; [0032], [0034], [0046], [0076]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Zhu by immersing the substrate and coating film in acetone as disclosed by Yi before immersing in the organic poor solvent in order to undergo phase transformation (see e.g., Yi; [0032], [0034]) and improve the service life (see e.g., Yi; [0002]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327), Saka (US-20170047569-A1), Kimura (US-20160190534-A1), and Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation), and in further view of David (J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 32, 7906–7919).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 19. Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the alkylimidazolium salt is 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium diethylphosphate. However, David discloses wherein the ionic liquid for the cellulose is 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium diethylphosphate (see e.g., David; abstract, sections 2.2, 3.1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhu by providing 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium diethylphosphate as the ionic liquid as disclosed by David in order to dissolve significant quantities of cellulosic biomass (see e.g., David; conclusion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights