DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received 12/12/2025, the following objections and rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objections to the claims
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 13, 14, 18, and 21
35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1, 4, 9, and 19-23 and 26
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18-21, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20170025658A1, hereafter Shi, in view of Published Application US20130224632A1 (supplied by applicant), hereafter Roumi.
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses a heat-resistant battery separator (20) comprising:
two microporous layers (22,24); and
a heat-resistant layer (10) ([0039] conductive layer is thermally and mechanically stable) between the microporous layers (22,24) ([0076], Fig 37; page 8 of present specification states that the heat resistant layer may be any material that can withstand high temperatures above 160°C to above 300°C, which means the material does not deform, melt, decompose, or disintegrate at and/or above these temperatures – ceramics such as the ceramic layer (10) have considerably higher melt temperatures),
Shi is silent on wherein the battery separator is thin and has a thickness of 20 nm or less, 19 nm or less, 18 nm or less, 17 nm or less, 16 nm or less, 15 nm or less, 14 nm or less, 13 nm or less, 12 nm or less, 11 nm or less, 10 nm or less, 9 nm or less, 8 nm or less, 7 nm or less, 6 nm or less, or 5 nm or less.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Roumi discloses wherein the battery separator is thin and has a thickness of 20 nm or less, 19 nm or less, 18 nm or less, 17 nm or less, 16 nm or less, 15 nm or less, 14 nm or less, 13 nm or less, 12 nm or less, 11 nm or less, or 10 nm or less ([0077 separator has a total thickness of 10 nm to 200 µm]).
Roumi further discloses separator performance can be enhanced by improving the conductivity by using thinner layers ([0246]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Shi to use a separator thickness of 10-20 nm as disclosed by Roumi in order to enhance the separator performance by improving the conductivity through the use of thinner layers, as suggested by Roumi ([0246]). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding the optional adhesive layer between the microporous layers, this limitation is considered to not be required by the claim due to recitation of the preceding term ‘optional’.
Regarding claim 2, Shi is silent on wherein the two microporous layers are thin and each independently have a thickness of 10 nm or less, 9 nm or less, 8 nm or less, 7 nm or less, 6 nm or less, 5 nm or less, 4 nm or less, 3 nm or less, 2 nm or less, or 1 nm or less.
Roumi discloses wherein the microporous layers ([0021] all low ionic resistance layers or high mechanical strength layers may comprise microporous material) are thin and each independently have a thickness of 10 nm to 2 µm ([0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10nm or less.
Roumi further discloses separator performance can be enhanced by improving the conductivity by using thinner layers ([0246]), and that the total thickness of the separator may be as low as 10 nm ([0070] 10 nm to 200 µm). The examiner notes, that since Roumi discloses the lower limit of 10 nm for the overall separator thickness, this necessarily implies that the lower limit of the potential thicknesses of the low ionic resistance layers or high mechanical strength layers must also then be lower than 10 nm each.
As the separator conductivity is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the layers of the separator, with the separator conductivity improving as the thickness of the separator layers is decreased, the thickness of the separator layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the microporous separator layers cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the microporous separator layers in the invention of modified Shi to obtain the desired improvement in separator conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, Shi further discloses wherein the heat-resistant layer (10) is a ceramic layer ([0133] ceramic layer between two surfaces of microporous membranes).
Regarding claim 9, Shi further discloses wherein the heat-resistant layer (10) is porous ([0148] ceramic layer is porous).
Regarding claim 11, Shi is silent on the use of an adhesive layer between the microporous layers, and wherein the adhesive layer comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of a polymer and optionally wherein the polymer is at least one selected from an acrylic polymer, a PVDF polymer, and combinations thereof.
Roumi discloses the use of an adhesive layer between layers of the separator ([0030] adhesive joining layers of separator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Shi to use adhesive layers between layers of the separator in order to join the layers together more securely.
Regarding the optional limitation of wherein the polymer is at least one selected from an acrylic polymer, a PVDF polymer, and combinations thereof, this limitation is considered to not be required by the claim due to recitation of the preceding term ‘optionally’.
Regarding claim 13, Shi is silent on the use of an adhesive layer between the microporous layers, and wherein two or more adhesive layers are present.
Roumi discloses the use of an adhesive layer between layers of the separator ([0030] adhesive joining layers of separator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Shi to use adhesive layers between layers of the separator in order to join the layers together more securely.
Roumi further discloses wherein two or more adhesive layers are present ([0030] over three layers of multilayer separator attached to each other via adhesive therebetween).
Regarding the optional limitation of wherein the adhesive layer comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of a polymer and a ceramic, this limitation is considered to not be required by the claim due to recitation of the preceding term ‘optionally’.
Regarding claim 14, modified Shi discloses wherein at least one adhesive layer is present between the heat-resistant layer and each of the porous layers (Roumi [0030] over three layers of multilayer separator attached to each other via adhesive therebetween).
Regarding claim 18, Shi is silent on the use of an adhesive layer between the microporous layers, and wherein the adhesive layer comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of a polymer and a ceramic.
Roumi discloses the use of an adhesive layer between layers of the separator ([0030] adhesive joining layers of separator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Shi to use adhesive layers between layers of the separator in order to join the layers together more securely.
Roumi further discloses wherein the adhesive layer comprises a polymer and a ceramic ([0030] acrylic adhesive and LISICON).
Regarding claim 19, Shi further discloses wherein the structure of the separator is symmetric about an axis running parallel to each of the layers of the separator (Fig 37).
Regarding claim 20, Shi further discloses wherein the separator also shuts down ([0020]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Shi further discloses a battery ([0009]) comprising the heat-resistant battery separator (20) of claim 1 ([0009, see above rejection of claim 1]).
Regarding claim 30, Shi discloses a heat-resistant battery separator (20) comprising:
two microporous layers (22,24); and
a heat-resistant layer (10) ([0039] conductive layer is thermally and mechanically stable) between the microporous layers (22,24) ([0076], Fig 37; page 8 of present specification states that the heat resistant layer may be any material that can withstand high temperatures above 160°C to above 300°C, which means the material does not deform, melt, decompose, or disintegrate at and/or above these temperatures – ceramics such as the ceramic layer (10) have considerably higher melt temperatures).
Shi is silent on wherein the two microporous layers are thin and each independently have a thickness of 9 nm or less, 8 nm or less, 7 nm or less, 6 nm or less, 5 nm or less, 4 nm or less, 3 nm or less, 2 nm or less, or 1 nm or less.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Roumi discloses wherein the microporous layers ([0021] all low ionic resistance layers or high mechanical strength layers may comprise microporous material) are thin and each independently have a thickness of 10 nm to 2 µm ([0039]).
Roumi further discloses separator performance can be enhanced by improving the conductivity by using thinner layers ([0246]), and that the total thickness of the separator may be as low as 10 nm ([0070] 10 nm to 200 µm). The examiner notes, that since Roumi discloses the lower limit of 10 nm for the overall separator thickness, this necessarily implies that the lower limit of the potential thicknesses of the low ionic resistance layers or high mechanical strength layers must also then be lower than 10 nm each.
As the separator conductivity is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the layers of the separator, with the separator conductivity improving as the thickness of the separator layers is decreased, the thickness of the separator layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the microporous separator layers cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the microporous separator layers in the invention of modified Shi to obtain the desired balance between the ionic conductivity and the mechanical strength of the separator (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20170025658A1, hereafter Shi, in view of Published Application US20130224632A1 (supplied by applicant), hereafter Roumi, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20190058177A1, hereafter Herle.
Regarding claim 10, modified Shi is silent on wherein the heat-resistant layer is non-porous.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Herle discloses a similar multilayer separator ([0035]) with a heat-resistant ceramic layer (130) between outer polymer layers ([0059], Fig 4) wherein the heat-resistant layer is non-porous ([0045] ceramic separator layer 130 is non-porous).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Shi to use a non-porous heat-resistant ceramic layer in order to impart increased mechanical strength, and further as a matter of the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20170025658A1, hereafter Shi, in view of US20130224632A1 (supplied by applicant), hereafter Roumi, as stated above for claim 13, and further in view of Published Application US20180034031A1, hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Shi is silent on wherein two of the two or more adhesive layers are adjacent to each other and optionally wherein the adjacent adhesive layers are made of the same or different materials.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Lee discloses wherein two of the two or more adhesive layers are adjacent each other ([0027] polymer in adhesive layer has functional groups that allow the polymer to interact with material in an adjacent adhesive layer, to enhance mechanical and barrier properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Shi to use adjacent adhesive layers with interactive functional groups in order to enhance the mechanical and barrier properties of the adhesive layer, as suggested by Lee ([0027]).
Claim(s) 22, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20190013504A1 (supplied by applicant), hereafter Choi, in view of Published Application US20130224632A1 (supplied by applicant), hereafter Roumi.
Regarding claim 22, Choi discloses a heat-resistant battery separator (10) comprising two (Fig 1) microporous (layers are implicitly microporous, since per [0052] the thickness of these layers is in a range of 0.01-20 µm, the pores would constitute holes through the layers if they were larger than the thickness) layers (Fig 1, [0013], heat-resistance porous layers 30) and a heat-resistant layer (20) ([0014] porous substrate 20 is polyamide imide or polyimide; page 4 of the present specification discloses the heat-resistant layer to be a high melt integrity material, which may be polyimide or polyamide imide) between the microporous layers (Fig 1, two layers 30 sandwiching layer 20), wherein
the heat-resistant layer (20) comprises a high melt integrity material ([0014] porous substrate 20 is polyamide imide or polyimide; page 4 of the present specification discloses the high melt integrity material to be polyimide or polyamide imide), and
a surface of at least one of the two microporous layers (30) comprises a functional group that increases adhesion between that surface of one of the two microporous layers and a surface of the heat-resistant layer ([0016] porous layer 30 includes filler + binder; [0023] binder adheres porous substrate 20 on one surface of the heat-resistance porous layer 30; [0025] binder has acid anhydride functional group; page 4 of the present specification discloses the functional group to be an anhydride).
Choi is silent on wherein the battery separator is thin and has a thickness of 20 nm or less, 19 nm or less, 18 nm or less, 17 nm or less, 16 nm or less, 15 nm or less, 14 nm or less, 13 nm or less, 12 nm or less, 11 nm or less, 10 nm or less, 9 nm or less, 8 nm or less, 7 nm or less, 6 nm or less, or 5 nm or less.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Roumi discloses wherein the battery separator is thin and has a thickness of 20 nm or less, 19 nm or less, 18 nm or less, 17 nm or less, 16 nm or less, 15 nm or less, 14 nm or less, 13 nm or less, 12 nm or less, 11 nm or less, or 10 nm or less ([0077 separator has a total thickness of 10 nm to 200 µm]).
Roumi further discloses separator performance can be enhanced by improving the conductivity by using thinner layers ([0246]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Choi to use a separator thickness of 10-20 nm as disclosed by Roumi in order to enhance the separator performance by improving the conductivity through the use of thinner layers, as suggested by Roumi ([0246]). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 23, Choi further discloses wherein the high melt integrity material comprises a polyimide or a polyamide imide ([0014] porous substrate 20 is polyamide imide or polyimide; page 4 of the present specification discloses the high melt integrity material to be polyimide or polyamide imide) and the functional group is an anhydride ([0025] binder has acid anhydride functional group).
Regarding claim 26, Choi further discloses wherein a surface of both of the two microporous layers (Fig 1, layers 30) comprises a functional group that increases adhesion between that surface and a surface of the heat-resistant layer ([0016] porous layer 30 includes filler + binder; [0023] binder adheres porous substrate 20 on one surface of the heat-resistance porous layer 30; [0025] binder has acid anhydride functional group; page 4 of the present specification discloses the functional group to be an anhydride); and
the functional group is an anhydride ([0025] binder has acid anhydride functional group).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on pages 9-10 of applicant’s remarks that even if one were to tune the two microporous layers to the absolute minimum thickness disclosed by Roumi of 10 nm, the resulting separator would already have a thickness of at least 20 nm, the examiner disagrees. As stated above in the new rejection of claim 1, Roumi also discloses a total separator thickness of between 10 nm and 200 µm ([0077]). Because of this lower end of 10 nm, Roumi implicitly also discloses layer thicknesses less than 10 nm for each of the layers, for such a minimum thickness to be made possible.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant’s remarks that Herle explicitly discloses that the heat resistant layer is deposited “on the surface of the electrode structure”, the examiner notes that Herle also explicitly discloses, as shown in Fig 4 and [0059], and as cited in the rejection, "Thus, instead of depositing the ceramic separator layer directly on the negative electrode as depicted in FIGS. 1-3, the ceramic separator layer 430 is deposited directly on either the protective film 420 (if present) or the pre-lithiation layer 410 if the protective film 420 is not present."
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights