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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 November 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 have been amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-18, and 21 as filed 13 May 2026 are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Argument
The objection to claims 8 and 9 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that “formation of a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution” is a physical property of the instant material of claim 1. Examiner notes that this is product-by-process claim language. Applicant argues specifically that the above limitation requires: (i) a silane-modified group is grafted thereto; (ii) the silane-modified group can undergo dehydration condensation under certain conditions to form a siloxane bond; and (iii) the silane-modified group has not yet chemically changed into a siloxane bond at the present time.
The instant specification teaches that “formation of a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution” is achievable when the following conditions are met: ([0024], [0030]) a) a polyethylene separator containing 0.5 -40 wt% silane-modified polyolefin; b) the separator is not a master batch containing dehydrating condensation catalyst that crosslinks the silane-modified polyolefin; and c) when exposed to electrolyte solution, the separator is capable of a nucleophilic substitution reaction, nucleophilic addition reaction, or a ring-opening polymerization reaction with the electrolyte.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Ryu’s disclosure at [0005] of coating a separator pertains to coating an already-formed separator, not to coating a non-crosslinked structure. Applicant further argues that the crosslinking of Ryu is intended to replace coating materials, and that Ryu does not teach the use of both coating and crosslinking. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. The instant claim is for a product, not a method. Applicant has not provided any evidence that coating prior to crosslinking will provide a different result than crosslinking followed by coating. In regard to Ryu teaching an already-formed, crosslinked separator as opposed to an uncrosslinked structure capable of forming a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction when initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution, Song teaches to perform the crosslinking reaction in situ (i.e., inside the battery upon contact with the electrolyte and heat) to improve adherence and prolong battery life. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ryu’s separator to include a silane-modified polyolefin capable of forming a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution for the purpose of providing improved adherence and prolonging battery life.
Further regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues Ryu is high-density polyethylene which is entirely subjected to a grafting reaction, and does not include other resins, and further argues that there is not a motivation to modify Ryu with Murata. These arguments are mood in light of a newly cited reference, Song.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation “formation of a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution”. Examiner notes that initiation of a crosslinking reaction when contacted with an electrolyte solution does not exclude the possibility that there may already be some crosslinking. See [0144] of the specification: “The crosslinked structure in this case is a crosslinked structure obtained not by active promotion of the crosslinking reaction during the production process for the separator, but rather by active promotion of the crosslinking reaction during the production process for the electricity storage device.” Examiner notes that even without “active promotion” of crosslinking, some crosslinking can occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “initiated” includes “active promotion of crosslinking”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 20160146134A, as cited by Applicant in an IDS, with references to the paragraph numbering of the English translation provided herewith) in view of Song (US 20130244080 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches a separator for an electricity storage device ([0001-0002]) comprising
a first porous layer (layer A) that includes a silane-modified polyolefin ([0003] separator … high porosity; [0011] polyolefin impregnated with silane; [0073] silane master batch 3.34 wt%, polyethylene 35 wt%) and
Regarding the limitation a second porous layer (layer B) that includes inorganic particles, Ryu discloses ([0005] (emphasis added) “to improve these low thermal properties, … improve the heat shrinkage phenomenon at high temperatures by coating the surface of polyethylene with inorganic substances”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to coat Ryu’s separator with an inorganic substance (e.g. inorganic particles) with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a separator with improved thermal properties and reduced heat shrinkage at high temperatures.
Regarding the limitation wherein properties of the silane-modified polyolefin include: formation of a crosslinked structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution, and wherein a heat shrinkage factor at 150°C after formation of the crosslinked structure defines a post-formation heat shrinkage factor and a heat shrinkage factor at 150°C before formation of the crosslinked structure defines a pre-formation heat shrinkage factor, and wherein the post-formation heat shrinkage factor is 0.02 to 0.91 times the pre-formation heat shrinkage factor, the instant specification teaches that these limitations can be met with the following features: ([0024], [0030]) a) a polyethylene separator containing 0.5 -40 wt% silane-modified polyolefin; b) the separator is not master batch containing dehydrating condensation catalyst that crosslinks the silane-modified polyolefin; and c) when exposed to electrolyte solution, the separator is capable of a nucleophilic substitution reaction, nucleophilic addition reaction, or a ring-opening polymerization reaction with the electrolyte.
Regarding the above features, Ryu teaches (a) at [0073] a silane master batch 3.34 wt% and polyethylene 35 wt%, which falls within the taught range and (b) the separator is not master batch containing dehydrating condensation catalyst that crosslinks the silane-modified polyolefin.
Ryu teaches ([0058] a crosslinking step at elevated temperature and [0060]) a crosslinking reaction but does not explicitly teach (c) when exposed to electrolyte solution, the separator is capable of a nucleophilic substitution reaction, nucleophilic addition reaction, or a ring-opening polymerization reaction with the electrolyte.
Song, in the field of (abstract) battery separators containing a bindable silane compound, teaches at [0051] the concept of providing an electrolyte solution to a battery and performing a heat treatment to cause a reaction between the reactive functional group. Adherence between the separator and the electrodes can be improved. At [0106], this can cause increased molecular weight of the binder polymer and also decreased gap between the separator and electrode, prolonging battery life.
While Song’s teaching of providing an electrolyte solution and heat to increase the molecular weight of a polymer and promote a reaction with the reactive functional group is taught by Song to be carried out using the silane-reacted inorganic compound on one or both surfaces of Song’s separator, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the same concept of reacting the reactive functional groups can be applied to Ryu’s silane-modified polyolefin separator. Said differently, a person of ordinary skill would understand that Ryu’s crosslinking step taught at [0058] can be carried out in the battery using in situ polymerization, with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing molecular weight of the polymer and creating a decreased gap between polymer and separator, therefore prolonging battery life.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ryu does not explicitly teach wherein the crosslinked structure in layer A is formed by an acid, a base, swelling, or a compound generated inside the electricity storage device While Ryu discloses at ([0060]) the use of a “crosslinking catalyst … organic bases, inorganic acids, and organic acids”, Ryu does not explicitly teach the inclusion of the crosslinking catalyst in the electrolyte solution.
Song, in the field of (abstract) battery separators containing a bindable silane compound, teaches at [0051] the concept of providing an electrolyte solution to a battery and performing a heat treatment to cause a reaction between the reactive functional group. Adherence between the separator and the electrodes can be improved. At [0106], this can cause increased molecular weight of the binder polymer and also decreased gap between the separator and electrode, prolonging battery life.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add a crosslinking catalyst to the electrolyte of modified Ryu, with a reasonable expectation of successfully prolonging battery life.
Regarding claim 12, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu further teaches an electricity storage device comprising an electrode, the separator for an electricity storage device according to claim 1, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution. ([0003], [0068] “salts containing ions … dissolved or dissociated in organic solvents including … propylene carbonate”)
Regarding claim 15, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu does not explicitly teach an electricity storage device assembly kit, comprising the following two elements:(1) an exterior body housing a laminated stack or wound body of electrodes and the separator for an electricity storage device according to claim 1; and (2) a container housing a nonaqueous electrolyte solution. However, Ryu teaches [0003] a battery comprising all of these components. A person of ordinary skill would understand that a product that is typically sold fully assembled (e.g. a battery) can be sold in an unfinished state (e.g. a battery with casing where the electrolyte in not yet installed.)
Regarding claim 16, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu further teaches wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution includes a fluorine (F)-containing lithium salt. ([0069] PF6-)
Regarding claim 17, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu further teaches wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution includes lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu in view of Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu further teaches wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution is an acid solution and/or a base solution. ([0069] PF6-)
Claims 3, 6-11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 20160146134A, as cited by Applicant in an IDS, with references to the paragraph numbering of the English translation provided herewith) in view of Kim (KR 101955911 B1, with paragraph numbering to US 20200067054 A1) and in further view of Song (US 20130244080 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches separator for an electricity storage device ([0001-0002]), which comprises:
a microporous membrane that includes a silane-modified polyolefin; ([0003] separator … high porosity; [0011] polyolefin impregnated with silane) and
Regarding the limitation an inorganic porous layer that includes inorganic particles and a resin binder, disposed on at least one surface of the microporous membrane. ([0005] (emphasis added) “to improve these low thermal properties, … improve the heat shrinkage phenomenon at high temperatures by coating the surface of polyethylene with inorganic substances”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to coat Ryu’s separator with an inorganic substance (e.g. inorganic particles) with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a separator with improved thermal properties and reduced heat shrinkage at high temperatures. However, Ryu does not disclose wherein the content of the silane-modified polyolefin in the microporous membrane is 0.5 wt% to 40 wt%, and does not disclose that the inorganic porous layer that includes a resin binder.
Kim, in the field of (abstract) silane-modified polyolefin separators, discloses [0013] a separator made from a combination of polyolefin and silane-modified polyolefin. At [0015] the silane-modified polyolefin may be 0.5 to 30% by weight. At [0054], “When the content of the silane - modified polyolefin in the separator is less than 0.5 % by weight, a silane crosslinking reaction may be inhibited and thus it may be difficult to realize a required level of the mechanical properties. When the content of the
silane - modified polyolefin is greater than 30 % by weight, it silane - modified polyolefin is greater than 30 % by weight, it may be difficult to realize properties required in a commercially available separator.” At [0055], if the content of silane is too high, it is disadvantageous in terms of economic feasibility. Examiner notes that, said differently, silane-modified polyolefin is expensive.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the separator of Ryu by adding some polyolefin which is not silane modified, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a desirable crosslinking reaction while reducing total cost of manufacturing.
Ryu and Kim are silent on the inorganic porous layer that includes a resin binder.
Song, in the field (abstract) of battery separators, teaches [0036] the use of a binder to improve coating processability and solution stability. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Ryu’s inorganic substance coated separator with the resin binder of Song, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving coating processability and solution stability.
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Ryu in view of Kim and Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However Ryu does not teach wherein the inorganic particles are one or more selected from the group consisting of alumina (Al2O3), silica, titania, zirconia, magnesia, ceria, yttria, zinc oxide, iron oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, boron nitride, silicon carbide, aluminum hydroxide oxide (AIO(OH)), talc, kaolinite, dickite, nacrite, halloysite, pyrophyllite, montmorillonite, sericite, mica, amesite, bentonite, asbestos, zeolite, diatomaceous earth, quartz sand and glass fibers.
Song discloses [0038] the use of alumina (Al2O3), silica, titania, zirconia, magnesia, ceria, yttria, and zinc oxide, which are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. At [0037], thermal stability is improved. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Song’s coating materials for the inorganic material coating of Ryu’s separator, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving thermal stability.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 21, wherein the inorganic particles are oxide-based ceramics.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu in view of Kim and Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ryu does not teach wherein the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the resin binder is -50°C to 100°C. However, Ryu in view of Song has rendered obvious the composition of the claimed separator. Because Ryu in view of Song’s separator has the same composition as the claimed separator, it therefore is expected to have the claimed glass transition temperature, thus rendering obvious the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu in view of Kim and Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein properties of the silane-modified polyolefin include formation of a crosslinking structure by a silane crosslinking reaction that is initiated when contacted with an electrolyte solution, Ryu discloses [0006] that crosslinking may be initiated by peroxide initiators, water crosslinking using silane, and electron beam crosslinking. However, Ryu does not explicitly disclose initiation of the reaction by contact with an electrolyte solution.
Song, in the field of (abstract) battery separators containing a bindable silane compound, teaches at [0051] the concept of providing an electrolyte solution to a battery and performing a heat treatment to cause a reaction between the reactive functional group. Adherence between the separator and the electrodes can be improved. At [0106], this can cause increased molecular weight of the binder polymer and also decreased gap between the separator and electrode, prolonging battery life.
While Song’s teaching of providing an electrolyte solution and heat to increase the molecular weight of a polymer and promote a reaction with the reactive functional group is taught by Song to be carried out using the silane-reacted inorganic compound on one or both surfaces of Song’s separator, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the same concept of reacting the reactive functional groups can be applied to modified Ryu’s silane-modified polyolefin separator. Said differently, a person of ordinary skill would understand that Ryu’s crosslinking step taught at [0058] can be carried out in the battery using in situ polymerization, with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing molecular weight of the polymer and creating a decreased gap between polymer and separator, therefore prolonging battery life.
Regarding claims 9 -11, Ryu in view of Kim and Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ryu does not teach wherein the separator meets specific storage modulus ratios and transition temperature. Referring to the instant specification at [0024], a microporous separator where the polymer fraction of the separator comprises 5 to 40 weight% of a silane-modified polyolefin and 60 to 95 weight% of a polyolefin other than the silane-modified polyolefin will meet the instant claim limitation.
Ryu as modified by Kim and Song, as set forth in claim 3, above, renders obvious the modification of the separator of Ryu by adding some polyolefin which is not silane modified, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a desirable crosslinking reaction while reducing total cost of manufacturing. Specifically, Kim teaches at [0015] that the silane-modified polyolefin may be 0.5 to 30% by weight, which overlaps the taught range of the instant specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to further optimize the silane-modified polyolefin content, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a desirable crosslinking reaction (e.g. mechanical properties) while reducing total cost of manufacturing, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the overlapping part of the range, thus rendering obvious achieving a separator meeting the limitations of claims 9-11.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 20160146134A, as cited by Applicant in an IDS, with references to the paragraph numbering of the English translation provided herewith) in view of Kim (KR 101955911 B1, with paragraph numbering to US 20200067054 A1) and in further view of Song (US 20130244080 A1), as set forth in claim 3, above, and in further view of Murata (JP 2011000832A).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu in view of Kim and Song teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu does not explicitly teach wherein the content of the inorganic particles in the inorganic porous layer is 5 wt% to 99 wt%.
Murata, in the field of (abstract) multilayer porous films, discloses [0032] that the mass percent of inorganic particles is preferably 50% to 99%, … from the viewpoint of permeability and heat resistance. (falls within the claimed range)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, modify modified Ryu’s separator with a mass percent of organic particles as taught by Murata, with a reasonable expectation of successfully balancing permeability and heat resistance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights