DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the 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.
Claim 1-2, 5-6-9, 11-16, 18, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, et. al. (WO2017210405A1), in view of Nam, et. al. (EP3518317A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Perry teaches a battery separator (separator 100) comprising: a porous membrane (“a separator having a microporous membrane”); and a surfactant coating (“[0014] one or more performance enhancing additives and/or coatings (e.g. a surfactant)”), which comprises a mixture of at least one ionic surfactant and at least one non-ionic surfactant (“[0015] Select embodiments of the present invention provide a battery separator having a porous membrane composed of a base material; rubber; and at least one performance enhancing additive . . . [0016] An aspect of the present invention may provide rubber coated on at least a portion of a surface of the porous membrane, or the rubber impregnated into at least a portion of the porous membrane . . . [0017] Another aspect of the present invention provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive is a surfactant, the surfactant may be any one of a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, and combinations thereof”), on at least one side of the porous membrane (“[00119] Another select embodiment of the present invention provides another method of making an exemplary separator by . . . coating the at least one additive onto at least a portion of the membrane.”). Perry at [0013 – 18, 0119].
Perry teaches a surfactant basis weight of the components; but does not directly disclose a weight percent range.
Nam teaches an electrochemical device including a separator, comprising “[0013] According to a first embodiment, there is provided a separator including: . . . a first porous coating layer and a second porous coating layer formed on one surface and the other surface of the porous substrate, respectively . . . [comprising] an anionic surfactant.” Nam at [0013]. Further, Nam teaches “[0039] The anionic surfactant may be used for each of the first porous coating layer and the second porous coating layer independently in an amount of 0.1-20 wt% based on the weight of each of the first porous coating layer and the second porous coating layer. When the amount of the anionic surfactant satisfies the above-defined range, it is possible to adsorb an excessive amount of transition metal ions dissolved out of a cathode, to prevent deposition of transition metal ions on the surface of an anode, to prevent generation of an excessive amount of air bubbles, and thus to facilitate preparation of slurry and manufacture of a separator.” Id. at [0039]. Nam teaches two layers of surfactants, and thereby a first and second surfactant, but does not teach an ionic and a non-ionic surfactant. However, Nam does teach a benefit to utilizing an anionic surfactant within a given wt% range of a separator, and when applied to an ionic / non-ionic surfactant mixture, this range a) indicates a beneficial effect to a given amount of ionic surfactant, which b) because of the word “independently” the first and second surfactant have separate weight percentages utilized in a range of 0.1 – 20 wt%, indicating the wt% of the first surfactant to the total surfactant mixture is from ~0.5% to ~ 99.5%, fully encompassing the range of Claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the surfactant mixture of Perry, such that the first surfactant (here, the ionic surfactant) is added in an amount of from 0.5 to 5.0 wt% and wherein the surfactant is on at least one side of the porous membrane, because Nam teaches a benefit to preventing generation of an excessive amount of air bubbles, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 1 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches the at least one non-ionic surfactant “[0064] The additive may be a single surfactant or a mixture of two or more surfactants, for instance two or more anionic surfactants, two or more non-ionic surfactants, or at least one ionic surfactant and at least one non-ionic surfactant . . . [and] can include a non-ionic surfactant such as polyol fatty acid esters, polyethoxylated esters, polyethoxylated alcohols, alkyl polysaccharides such as alkyl polyglycosides and blends thereof, amine ethoxylates, sorbitan fatty acid ester ethoxylates, organosilicone based surfactants, ethylene vinyl acetate terpolymers, ethoxylated alkyl aryl phosphate esters and sucrose esters of fatty acids.” Perry’s recital of alkyl polyglycosides, and organosilicone based surfactants meets the claim.
Claim 2 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches the at least one ionic surfactant is an anionic surfactant. Perry at [0090] (“[0090] In certain embodiments, the additive [is] . . . an anionic surfactant, or mixtures thereof)”).
Claim 5 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches the ionic surfactant is a cationic surfactant, for example, selected from a group of alkoxylated ammonium salts (“[0076] In certain embodiments, suitable additives may include, in particular, polyacrylic acids, polymethacrylic acids and acrylic acid-methacrylic acid copolymers, whose acid groups are at least partly neutralized, such as by preferably 40%, and particularly preferably by 80%. The percentage refers to the number of acid groups. Quite particularly preferred are poly(meth)acrylic acids which are present entirely in the salt form. Suitable salts include Li, Na, K, Rb, Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Zn, and ammonium (NR4 , wherein R is either hydrogen or a carbon functional group).”. Perry at [0076].
Claim 6 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “amino compounds (amino compounds (primary, secondary, tertiary amines, or quaternary amines)” as well as “amine ethoxylates.” Perry at [0064]. However, Perry does not explicitly recite an amino acid. That said, because Claim 7 requires an “amphoteric surfactant, for example, selected from a group of alkoxylated amino acids,” the amino acids are an optional limitation and not a requirement. The additive of Perry may comprise “[0065] In certain embodiments, the additive may be represented by a compound of Formula (I)
[AltContent: rect]R(OR1)n(COOM1/x x+)m (I)
in which: • R is a linear or non-aromatic hydrocarbon radical with 10 to 4200 carbon atoms, preferably 13 to 4200, which may be interrupted by oxygen atoms;
• R1 = H, -(CH^COOM^,/ ., or— (C¾k - S03 Mx+ 1/x , preferably H, where k = 1 or 2; . . . [0068] R is preferably a straight-chain or branched aliphatic hydrocarbon radical which may be interrupted by oxygen atoms. Saturated, uncross-linked hydrocarbon radicals are quite particularly preferred. However, as noted above, R may, in certain embodiments, be aromatic ring-containing. [0069] Through the use of the compounds of Formula (I) for the production of battery separators, they may be effectively protected against oxidative destruction.” This group may comprise amphoteric (chain molecular surfactants with oppositely charged groups at their head), such as materials having the accompanying metal ion). Further, Perry provides a rationale for selecting one of these materials as the amphoteric surfactant, in that it protects against oxidation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to select an amphoteric surfactant of Formula 1 of Perry as one of the surfactants of the mixture of Perry, because Perry teaches a benefit to preventing oxidation.
Claim 7 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches the ionic surfactant is “Suitable surfactants include surfactants such as salts of alkyl sulfates; alkylarylsulfonate salts; alkylphenol-alkylene oxide addition products; soaps; alkyl-naphthalene-sulfonate salts; one or more sulfo-succinates, such as an anionic sulfo-succinate; dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts; amino compounds (primary, secondary, tertiary amines, or quaternary amines); block copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide; various polyethylene oxides; and salts of mono and dialkyl phosphate esters.” This reads upon “the ionic surfactant is . . . alkylarylsulfonate salts; alkylphenol-alkylene oxide addition products; soaps; alkyl-naphthalene- sulfonate salts; one or more sulfo-succinates, such as an anionic sulfo-succinate; dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts; amino compounds (primary, secondary or tertiary amines; quaternary amines; block copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide; various polyethylene oxides; salts of mono and dialkyl phosphate esters, and mixtures thereof.”
Claim 8 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Claim 9 recites Formula 1, wherein the ionic surfactant has one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
161
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where n is an integer from 0 to 10, m is an integer from 0 to 10, n and m are the same or different, q is an integer from 0 to 10, r is an integer from 0 to 10, s is an integer from 0 to 10, and q, r, and s are the same or different, R1 is H, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group, a C1 to C10 fatty alcohol, a C1 to C10 alcohol, or an aromatic group, and R2 is H, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated fatty alcohol, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alcohol, or an aromatic group, n and m are the same or different, R1 and R2 are the same or different, R3 is hydrogen or methyl or a C1 to C5 alkyl group, R4 is hydrogen or methyl or a C1 to C5 alkyl group R3 and R4 are the same or different, and X is a negatively charged groups such as SO3-, COO-, PO4-2, and the like; and also a positively charged counter- ion.
Perry teaches “[0064] suitable surfactants include . . . dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts.” These sulfo-succinate esters comprise a positively charged counter-ion such as Na, an X group which is SO3-, and having for example the formula below for a sulfosuccinic acid diester disodium salt (monoester sulfosuccinate).
PNG
media_image2.png
172
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 permits n = 0, m = m=0, R1, R2 = H, X to be SO3-, meaning Perry teaches the ionic surfactant of Claim 9.
Claim 9 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “[0017] the at least one performance enhancing additive is a surfactant, the surfactant may be any one of a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a canonic surfactant, and combinations thereof. A refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 25 g/m2”. Perry [0017]. Perry further specifies that this value includes a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, or mixtures thereof. Id. at [0090]. In addition, the basis weight of the separator is also measured in g/m2, and “[0098] exemplary separators may have a basis weight of less than or equal to 140 g/m2 , less than or equal to 130 g/m2 , less than or equal to 120 g/m2 , less than or equal to 110 g/m2 , less than or equal to 100 g/m2 , less than or equal to 90 g/m2 , or lower. Exemplary separators preferably have a basis weight of approximately 130 g/m2 to approximately 90 g/m2 or lower, and preferably approximately 120 g/m2 to approximately 90 g/m2 or lower.” As such, the wt% can be calculated because [0017] provides sufficient basis to conclude the individual ionic / non-ionic quantities (individually OR in combination) can fall within the former range. Here, Perry teaches a wt% of 1% ionic surfactant if the ionic surfactant is 1 g/m2, the nonionic surfactant is 1 g/m2, and the total basis weight is 100 g/m2. This anticipates the claimed wt% range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt%.
A prior art overlapping range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity; because later in the sentence, Perry discloses “yet another refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 6 g/ m2 “ the end point of the refined range indicates an embodiment which is very close to the endpoint of the claimed range. This supports a determination of sufficient specificity.
Claim 12 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “[0017] Another aspect of the present invention provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive is a surfactant, the surfactant may be any one of a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a canonic surfactant, and combinations thereof. A refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 25 g/m2.” Perry at [0017]. This presents an overlapping range with “wherein a non-ionic surfactant level is less than 10 g/m2.” A prior art overlapping range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity; because later in the sentence, Perry discloses “yet another refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 10 g/ m2” the end point of the refined range indicates an embodiment reciting the limitation exactly. This supports a determination of sufficient specificity.
Claim 13 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “[0017] Another aspect of the present invention provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive is a surfactant, the surfactant may be any one of a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a canonic surfactant, and combinations thereof. A refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 25 g/m2.” Perry at [0017]. This presents an overlapping range with “wherein a non-ionic surfactant level is less than 7 g/m2.” A prior art overlapping range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity; because later in the sentence, Perry discloses “yet another refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 6 g/ m2 “ the end point of the refined range indicates an embodiment which is very close to the endpoint of the claimed range. This supports a determination of sufficient specificity.
Claim 14 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “[0017] Another aspect of the present invention provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive is a surfactant, the surfactant may be any one of a non-ionic surfactant, an ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a canonic surfactant, and combinations thereof. A refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 25 g/m2.” Perry at [0017]. This presents an overlapping range with “wherein a non-ionic surfactant level is from 1 g/m2 to 5 g/m2, from 1 g/m2 to 4 g/m2, or from 2.5 g/m2 to 4 g/m2. A prior art overlapping range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity; because later in the sentence, Perry discloses “yet another refinement of exemplary embodiments provides that the at least one performance enhancing additive to be at lease approximately 0.5 g/m2 to no more than approximately 6 g/ m2 “ the end point of the refined range indicates an embodiment which is very close to the endpoint of the claimed range. This supports a determination of sufficient specificity.
Claim 15 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches the porous membrane is a porous membrane comprising polyethylene. Perry at [0015](“ [0015] Select embodiments of the present invention provide a battery separator having a porous membrane composed of a base material; rubber; and at least one performance enhancing additive. The base material may be one or more of a polymer, polyolefin, polyethylene.”)
Claim 16 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches a lead acid battery ([0002] “improved separators for lead acid batteries”) comprising: the battery separator according to claim 1 (separator 100) and at least one grid (“[0004] the electrodes in a lead acid battery are often made up of a lead alloy . . . antimony is [also] often present in the positive grid in the battery.”) comprising lead or a lead alloy, wherein the grid exhibits reduced grid corrosion (“[0079] In some embodiments, the microporous polyolefin porous membrane may include a coating on one or both sides of such layer. Such a coating may include a surfactant or other material. In some embodiments, the coating may include one or more materials described, for example, in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0094183, which is incorporated by reference herein. Such a coating may, for example, reduce the overcharge voltage of the battery system, thereby extending battery life with less grid corrosion and preventing dry out and/ or water loss”).
However, Perry is silent as to a comparison to the same battery where the separator includes a coating with a non- ionic surfactant, but no ionic surfactant.
Perry teaches a benefit to grid corrosion when using both ionic surfactants and non-ionic surfactants in combination, and because Perry teaches the invention of Claim 1, that Perry also implies or at least suggests the grid exhibits reduced grid corrosion compared to the same battery with a non-ionic surfactant, but without an ionic surfactant. See also Perry at [0064] (“The use of these certain suitable surfactants in conjunction with the inventive separators described herein can lead to even further improved separators.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the separator of Perry, such that it exhibits reduced grid corrosion compared to the same battery where the separator includes a coating with a non-ionic surfactant but no ionic surfactant, because Perry suggests “even further improved separators,” and teaches explicitly the use of both materials.
Claim 18 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 26, Perry teaches battery separator (separator 100) comprising: a porous membrane (“[0014] The separator for a lead acid battery described herein may comprise a polyolefin microporous membrane . . . and one or more performance enhancing additives and/ or coatings (e.g., a surfactant)”); and a surfactant coating, wherein the surfactant of the surfactant coating consists of a compound having one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image3.png
161
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where n is an integer from 0 to 10, m is an integer from 0 to 10, n and m are the same or different, q is an integer from 0 to 10, r is an integer from 0 to 10, s is an integer from 0 to 10, and q, r, and s are the same or different, R1 is H, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group, a C1 to C10 fatty alcohol, a C1 to C10 alcohol, or an aromatic group, and R2 is H, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl group, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated fatty alcohol, a C1 to C10 linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alcohol, or an aromatic group, n and m are the same or different, R1 and R2 are the same or different, R3 is hydrogen or methyl or a C1 to C5 alkyl group, R4 is hydrogen or methyl or a C1 to C5 alkyl group R3 and R4 are the same or different, and X is a negatively charged groups such as SO3-, COO-, PO4-2, and the like; and also a positively charged counter- ion.
Perry teaches “[0064] suitable surfactants include . . . dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts.” These sulfo-succinate esters comprise a positively charged counter-ion such as Na, an X group which is SO3-, and having for example the formula below for the simplest sulfosuccinic acid diester disodium salt (monoester sulfosuccinate).
PNG
media_image2.png
172
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 26 permits n = 0, m = m=0, R1, R2 = H, X to be SO3-, meaning Perry teaches the ionic surfactant of Claim 26.
Perry teaches a surfactant basis weight of the components; but does not directly disclose a weight percent range.
Nam teaches an electrochemical device including a separator, comprising “[0013] According to a first embodiment, there is provided a separator including: . . . a first porous coating layer and a second porous coating layer formed on one surface and the other surface of the porous substrate, respectively . . . [comprising] an anionic surfactant.” Nam at [0013]. Further, Nam teaches “[0039] The anionic surfactant may be used for each of the first porous coating layer and the second porous coating layer independently in an amount of 0.1-20 wt% based on the weight of each of the first porous coating layer and the second porous coating layer. When the amount of the anionic surfactant satisfies the above-defined range, it is possible to adsorb an excessive amount of transition metal ions dissolved out of a cathode, to prevent deposition of transition metal ions on the surface of an anode, to prevent generation of an excessive amount of air bubbles, and thus to facilitate preparation of slurry and manufacture of a separator.” Id. at [0039]. Nam teaches two layers of surfactants, and thereby a first and second surfactant, but does not teach an ionic and a non-ionic surfactant. However, Nam does teach a benefit to utilizing an anionic surfactant within a given wt% range of a separator, and when applied to an ionic / non-ionic surfactant mixture, this range a) indicates a beneficial effect to a given amount of ionic surfactant, which b) because of the word “independently” the first and second surfactant have separate weight percentages utilized in a range of 0.1 – 20 wt%, indicating the wt% of the first surfactant to the total surfactant mixture is from ~0.5% to ~ 99.5%, fully encompassing the range of Claim 26.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the surfactant mixture of Perry, such that the first surfactant (here, the ionic surfactant) is added in an amount of from 0.5 to 5.0 wt% and wherein the surfactant is on at least one side of the porous membrane, because Nam teaches a benefit to preventing generation of an excessive amount of air bubbles, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 26 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 relies upon Claim 26. Claim 26 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Perry teaches the battery separator of claim 26.
Regarding the interpretation of “wherein R3 and R4 are the same and are both hydrogen in either structure, wherein R3 and R4 are the same and both methyl groups in either structure; wherein X is SO3-; wherein X is PO4-2; wherein m and n are each an integer from1 to 5; wherein m and n are each an integer from 6 to 10; wherein m is an integer from 1 to 5; wherein n is an integer from1 to 5; wherein m is an integer from 6 to 10;wherein n is an integer from 6 to 10; wherein q, r, and s are each an integer from 1 to 5; wherein q, r, and s are each an integer from 6 to 10; wherein q is an integer from1 to 5; wherein r is an integer from 1 to 5; wherein s is an integer from1 to 5; wherein q is an integer from 6 to 10;wherein r is an integer from 6 to 10; or wherein s is an integer from 6 to 10,” because “or” is used at the final clause, and because several clauses are mutually exclusive (i.e. X = SO3- and X is PO4 2-), this is a set of alternatives. Thereby, Perry’s disclosure of “dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts,” discloses the use of SO3- as the negatively charged group.
Claim 27 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam.
Claim 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, in view of Nam, and further in view of Ramesh, et. al., Influence of Surfactant Structure on Wettability Modification of Hydrophobic Granular Surfaces, 167 (1) Journal of Colloid and Interface Science p. 207 - 210, October 1994.
Examiner notes that chronologically, Claim 3 precedes Claim 4. However, Claim 3 will be addressed after the Claim 4 analysis, because while the same underlying modification is being performed, Claim 4 presents discussion of alcohol alkoxylates which provides context to the Claim 3 discussion. Both claims are dependent upon Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches as preferred additives “alcohols . . . fatty alcohol alkoxylates . . . and fatty alcohol alkoxylates are being preferred.” Perry at [0073]. Specifically, Perry teaches a formula R2 – [(OC2H4)p(OC3H6)q] – where fatty alcohol alkoxylates comprise p = 1-2 and q = 1 to 4, wherein R2 is a straight chain or branched alkyl radical with 10 to 20, carbon atoms. Perry at [0070 – 73]. The OC2H4 are the ethylene oxide groups, whereby the OC3H6 “preferably stands for . . . OCH(CH3)2 or OCH2CH2CH3=”, giving the formula the formula below when having the minimal amount of carbons (although Examiner notes that additional carbon groups may be added up to 20):
PNG
media_image4.png
143
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The alcohol alkoxylate of Perry, as described by the formula [0070 – 73].
Meanwhile, Claim 4 requires:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein p = 0 – 10, m = 1-15, and n = 5-20. This recites as an embodiment:
PNG
media_image6.png
132
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A claimed alkoxylate of the instant invention, wherein the difference is one CH2 within the alcohol group along the main chain.
Ramesh teaches or at least suggests that “hydrocarbon chain structure [is] observed to influence the extent and nature of wettability modification . . . wetting rates are the highest for C12 and C13 ethoxylates.” Ramesh at p. 210, Fig. 3-4. This indicates that within a non-ionic surfactant, the increase in length to C12 and/or C13 improves wetting (i.e., dissolution in an aqueous solution). This indicates chain length is a result-effective variable, which would be modified in order to change wetting rate.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery separator of Perry and specifically the fatty alkoxylates of Perry’s non-ionic surfactant, such that it comprises the formula of Claim 4 (wherein the alcohol group is missing one CH2 in the chain), because Ramesh teaches chain lengths within ethoxylates are a result effective variable used to modify wetting, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have arrived at the claimed material through routine optimization.
Claim 4 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam, further in view of Ramesh.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry is silent as to a cloud point. However, Perry does teach the non-ionic separator of Claim 1.
As previously noted, Perry teaches as preferred additives “alcohols . . . fatty alcohol alkoxylates . . . and fatty alcohol alkoxylates are being preferred.” Perry at [0073]. Specifically, Perry teaches a formula R2 – [(OC2H4)p(OC3H6)q] – where fatty alcohol alkoxylates comprise p = 1-2 and q = 1 to 4, wherein R2 is a straight chain or branched alkyl radical with 10 to 20, carbon atoms. Perry at [0070 – 73]. The OC2H4 are the ethylene oxide groups, whereby the OC3H6 “preferably stands for . . . OCH(CH3)2 or OCH2CH2CH3=”, giving the formula the formula below when having the minimal amount of carbons (although Examiner notes that additional carbon groups may be added up to 20):
PNG
media_image4.png
143
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The alcohol alkoxylate of Perry, as described by the formula [0070 – 73].
Ramesh teaches or at least suggests that “hydrocarbon chain structure [is] observed to influence the extent and nature of wettability modification . . . wetting rates are the highest for C12 and C13 ethoxylates.” Ramesh at p. 210, Fig. 3-4. This indicates that within a non-ionic surfactant, the increase in length to C12 and/or C13 improves wetting (i.e., dissolution in an aqueous solution). This indicates chain length is a result-effective variable, which would be modified in order to change wetting rate.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery separator of Perry and specifically the fatty alkoxylates of Perry’s non-ionic surfactant, such that it comprises the formula of Claim 4 (wherein the alcohol group is missing one CH2 in the chain), because Ramesh teaches chain lengths within ethoxylates are a result effective variable used to modify wetting, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to increase the number of chain molecules to improve wetting.
In addition, because modified Perry would comprise the same underlying material as presented within the Examples of pages 15-19, specifically an alcohol alkoxylate, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize them to inherently have the same cloud point, because identical materials necessarily must present identical properties. MPEP 2112.
PNG
media_image7.png
167
667
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Page 16 excerpt of Perry.
For this reason, the non-ionic separator of modified Perry teaches the non-ionic surfactant has a cloud point rating greater than about 15°C, greater than about 20°C, or greater than about 25°C.
Claim 3 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam, further in view of Ramesh.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, in view of Nam, and further in view of Deepika, et. al., Sulfosuccinates as Mild Surfactants, 55 (9) Journal of Oleo Science 429-439, (May 6, 2006).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Perry teaches “[0064] suitable surfactants include . . . dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts.” Perry teaches thereby the use of sulfosuccinates, but is silent as to an embodiment wherein the ionic surfactant has the following structure:
PNG
media_image8.png
127
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This material as reproduced from the claim set may be referred to as 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate. Perry is silent as to 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate.
Deepika teaches the use of sulfosuccinates as well-known anionic surfactants (“49% of all anionic surfactants”), which have strong wetting (i.e. solubility in aqueous solutions), and “good chemical stability, anti-clogging properties . . . . better performance properties like solubilization, wetting, foaming, and dispersing than other anionic surfactants. Deepika at Abstract, 435. This dispersion and solubility characteristic is critical, Perry identifies “increasing wettability” as a purpose of its separator design. Perry at [0006]; Deepika at 435. Deepika teaches 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate as a known sulfosuccinate with these characteristics, and also indicates it does not biodegrade in 28 days within waste water, which at least suggests increased resistance to certain varieties of degradation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the ionic surfactant of Perry, such that it comprises the 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate of Deepika, because Deepika teaches an improvement to increasing wettability.
Claim 10 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam, and further in view of Deepika.
Claims 17, and 19 -21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry, in view of Nam and Ramesh, further in view of Deepika.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry. Perry teaches a non-ionic surfactant and an ionic surfactant, but is silent as to a perox80 value.
Perry teaches as preferred additives “alcohols . . . fatty alcohol alkoxylates . . . and fatty alcohol alkoxylates are being preferred.” Perry at [0073]. Specifically, Perry teaches a formula R2 – [(OC2H4)p(OC3H6)q] – where fatty alcohol alkoxylates comprise p = 1-2 and q = 1 to 4, wherein R2 is a straight chain or branched alkyl radical with 10 to 20, carbon atoms. Perry at [0070 – 73]. The OC2H4 are the ethylene oxide groups, whereby the OC3H6 “preferably stands for . . . OCH(CH3)2 or OCH2CH2CH3=”, giving the formula the formula below when having the minimal amount of carbons (although Examiner notes that additional carbon groups may be added up to 20):
PNG
media_image4.png
143
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The alcohol alkoxylate of Perry, as described by the formula [0070 – 73].
Meanwhile, Claim 4 requires:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein p = 0 – 10, m = 1-15, and n = 5-20. This recites as an embodiment:
PNG
media_image6.png
132
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A claimed alkoxylate of the instant invention, wherein the difference is one CH2 within the alcohol group along the main chain.
Ramesh teaches or at least suggests that “hydrocarbon chain structure [is] observed to influence the extent and nature of wettability modification . . . wetting rates are the highest for C12 and C13 ethoxylates.” Ramesh at p. 210, Fig. 3-4. This indicates that within a non-ionic surfactant, the increase in length to C12 and/or C13 improves wetting (i.e., dissolution in an aqueous solution). This indicates chain length is a result-effective variable, which would be modified in order to change wetting rate.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery separator of Perry and specifically the fatty alkoxylates of Perry’s non-ionic surfactant, such that it comprises the formula of Claim 4 (wherein the alcohol group is missing one CH2 in the chain), because Ramesh teaches chain lengths within ethoxylates are a result effective variable used to modify wetting, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have arrived at the claimed material through routine optimization.
Perry teaches “[0064] suitable surfactants include . . . dialkyl esters of sulfo-succinate salts.” Perry teaches thereby the use of sulfosuccinates, but is silent as to an embodiment wherein the ionic surfactant has the following structure:
PNG
media_image8.png
127
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This material as reproduced from the claim set may be referred to as 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate. Perry is silent as to 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate.
Deepika teaches the use of sulfosuccinates as well-known anionic surfactants (“49% of all anionic surfactants”), which have strong wetting (i.e. solubility in aqueous solutions), and “good chemical stability, anti-clogging properties . . . . better performance properties like solubilization, wetting, foaming, and dispersing than other anionic surfactants. Deepika at Abstract, 435. This dispersion and solubility characteristic is critical, Perry identifies “increasing wettability” as a purpose of its separator design. Perry at [0006]; Deepika at 435. Deepika teaches 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate as a known sulfosuccinate with these characteristics, and also indicates it does not biodegrade in 28 days within waste water, which at least suggests increased resistance to certain varieties of degradation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the ionic surfactant of Perry, such that it comprises the 1,3 dimethyl butyl sulfosuccinate of Deepika, because Deepika teaches an improvement to increasing wettability.
As modified by both Rajesh and Deepika, the battery separator of modified Perry comprises the same material as the surfactants utilized within the Examples of page 16 – 19 of the instant specification. Because modified Perry teaches an identical material, it necessarily has identical properties, and thus modified Perry inherently discloses a perox80 value that is 90% or more, 91% or more, 92% or more, 93% or more, 94% or more, 95% or more, 96% or more, 97% or more, 98% or more, 99% or more or 100% of an initial value before the perox80 test was conducted; and an ERBOIL value less than 60. MPEP 2112.
Claim 17 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam and Ramesh, further in view of Deepika.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Modified Perry teaches a lead acid battery comprising the battery separator of claim 1; because as previously modified with Rajesh and Deepika, Perry discloses the same material as the surfactant mixture utilized within the Examples of page 16-19 of the instant specification. Because modified Perry teaches an identical material, it necessarily has identical properties, and thus modified Perry inherently discloses the battery has a black residue rating less than 3.
Claim 19 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam and Ramesh, further in view of Deepika.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 relies upon Claim 19. Claim 19 is obvious over modified Perry.
Modified Perry teaches a lead acid battery comprising the battery separator of claim 1; because as previously modified with Rajesh and Deepika, Perry discloses the same material as the surfactant mixture utilized within the Examples of page 16-19 of the instant specification. Because modified Perry teaches an identical material, it necessarily has identical properties, and thus modified Perry inherently discloses the battery has a black residue rating less than 2. MPEP 2112.
Claim 20 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam and Ramesh, further in view of Deepika.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Perry.
Modified Perry teaches a lead acid battery comprising the battery separator of claim 1; because as previously modified with Rajesh and Deepika, Perry discloses the same material as the surfactant mixture utilized within the Examples of page 16-19 of the instant specification. Because modified Perry teaches an identical material, it necessarily has identical properties, and thus modified Perry inherently discloses the battery exhibits PSoC cycle life testing greater than 10,000 cycles, greater than 20,000 cycles, greater than 30,000 cycles, greater than 40,000 cycles, or greater than 45,000 cycles. MPEP 2112.
Claim 21 is obvious over Perry, in view of Nam and Ramesh, further in view of Deepika.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21, 26-27 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights