T 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In response to the amendment received 12/30/2025, the following objections and rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objection to claim 4
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 15-16
35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-17, 22, 24, and 25
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3 and 6
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, 4-5, 7-17, 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20120015229A1, hereafter Ohashi, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20150155538A1, hereafter Tang.
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi discloses a multilayer battery separator (abstract, [0001]) comprising:
a first outer layer ([0070] first polyolefin microporous membrane) comprising a blend of a polypropylene ([0076]) and a first nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0070] inorganic filler with 1-89 nm particle size); and
a second outer layer laminated to the first outer layer ([0070] second polyolefin microporous membrane laminated on the first microporous layer).
Ohashi is silent on wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler has an average pore size of 2-15 nm.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Tang discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0044] such as silica or titania) has an average pore size of 2-50 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2-15 nm. Tang further discloses the mesopores of the fine particles in the separator suction the electrolyte by a capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte solution in the mesopores ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select pore diameters of 2-15nm for the nanoparticles as disclosed by Tang in order to suction the electrolyte by a capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte solution in the mesopores. Further, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07), and because 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 2, Ohashi discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler comprises SiO, TiO2, or any combination thereof ([0024] one or two or more of silicon oxide and titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi discloses wherein a ratio of first nanoparticle inorganic filler to polypropylene comprises 1% ([0155]), which lies inside the range of 0.1-10% (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler has an average size in three dimensions of 50-300 nm ([0070] inorganic filler with 1-89 nm particle size, which overlaps with the range of 50-300 nm, see MPEP 2131.03 (II)).
Regarding claim 7, Ohashi discloses wherein the blend of polypropylene and first nanoparticle inorganic filler is coextruded ([0178] layers formed by coextrusion).
Regarding claim 8, Ohashi discloses wherein the second outer layer (second polyolefin microporous layer) comprises a blend of a polypropylene ([0076] polyolefin is polypropylene) and a second nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0101] inorganic filler in second polyolefin microporous layer).
Regarding claim 9, Ohashi discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler comprises SiO, TiO2, or any combination thereof ([0024] one or two or more of silicon oxide and titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 10, Ohashi discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler and the second nanoparticle inorganic filler are the same type ([0074] layers are different from each other in porosity or pore structure, but not raw materials).
Regarding claim 11, Ohashi discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler and the second nanoparticle inorganic filler are different types ([0074] layers are different from each other in raw materials).
Regarding claim 12, Ohashi discloses one or more inner layers positioned between the first outer layer and the second outer layer ([0090] first polyolefin microporous layers are surface layers and second polyolefin microporous layer is the intermediate layer), wherein at least one of the inner layers comprises a polypropylene ([0076] polyolefin is polypropylene).
Regarding claim 13, Ohashi discloses wherein the one or more inner layers are free of a nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0098] polyolefin resin concentration of intermediate layer may be 100% by mass).
Regarding claim 14, Ohashi discloses wherein the one or more inner layers are blended with a nanoparticle inorganic filler, with the nanoparticle inorganic filler being present in an amount less than 10 wt.% based on a total weight of the inner layer ([0098] polyolefin resin concentration of intermediate layer may be 90% by mass or more).
Regarding claim 15, Ohashi discloses wherein the one or more inner layers comprise one or more polypropylene inner layers positioned between the first outer layer and the second outer layer ([0090] first polyolefin microporous layers are surface layers and second polyolefin microporous layer is the intermediate layer; [0076] polyolefin is polypropylene).
Regarding claim 16, Ohashi discloses wherein the one or more polypropylene inner layers is free of a nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0098] polyolefin resin concentration of intermediate layer may be 100% by mass); or wherein the one or more polypropylene inner layers is blended with a nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0070] inorganic filler in at least one of the layers, implying first and second layers; [0090] first polyolefin microporous layers are surface layers and second polyolefin microporous layer is the intermediate layer).
Regarding claim 17, Ohashi discloses wherein the separator has a porosity in the range of 35% to 65% ([0345] Table 1, porosities ranging from 53-61%)
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Ohashi discloses a lithium ion battery ([0452] lithium ion batteries) comprising the membrane of claims 1 and 2 (see rejections above).
Regarding claim 26, Ohashi discloses a multilayer battery separator (abstract, [0001]) comprising:
a first outer layer ([0070] first polyolefin microporous membrane) consisting essentially of a blend of a polypropylene ([0076]) and a first nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0070] inorganic filler with 1-89 nm particle size); and
a second outer layer laminated to the first outer layer ([0070] second polyolefin microporous membrane laminated on the first microporous layer).
Ohashi is silent on wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler has an average pore size of 2-15 nm.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Tang discloses wherein the first nanoparticle inorganic filler ([0044] such as silica or titania) has an average pore size of 2-50 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2-15 nm. Tang further discloses the mesopores of the fine particles in the separator suction the electrolyte by a capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte solution in the mesopores ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select pore diameters of 2-15nm for the nanoparticles as disclosed by Tang in order to suction the electrolyte by a capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte solution in the mesopores. Further, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07), and because 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)).
The examiner notes that since the limitations of “one or more additives selected from the group consisting of: an ionomer, a cellulose nanofiber, a lubricating agent, a nucleating agent, a cavitation promoter, a fluoropolymer, a cross-linker, a lithium halide, a polymer processing agent, a high temperature melt index (HTMI) polymer, an electrolyte additive, and combinations thereof” are preceded by “optionally,” the claimed optional additive is considered not to be required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant’s remarks that the present invention claims nanoparticles with the 2-15 nm pore sizes rather than the microparticles required by Tang, the examiner first notes the designation of a particle as a microparticle or a nanoparticle is an arbitrary one, as for example Tang discloses the microparticles to be agglomerated primary particles, where the fine primary particles have a diameter of 0.1 µm to 0.5µm, which is 100-500 nm, which for example is similar to the range in present claim 3, which presumes to still meet the definition of "nanoparticle". Further, the examiner also notes, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Tang was used to modify the invention of Ohashi with the pore size of the nanoparticles, and was not selected to meet the limitation that the inorganic particles be nanoparticles.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant’s remarks that Tang teaches away from utilizing nanoparticles absent any such microparticles, the examiner first notes, as stated above, that the microparticles of Tang are secondary particles composed of agglomerated nanoparticles. Second, the examiner notes that at best, Tang teaches away from using only nanoparticles in the invention of Tang. The examiner also notes, as stated above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Tang was used to modify the invention of Ohashi with the pore size of the nanoparticles, and was not selected to meet the limitation that the inorganic particles be nanoparticles. As stated in the rejection, the only feature missing from Ohashi was the pore size, and Tang teaches the pore size, and the motivation for using it, which is to suction the electrolyte by capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte solution in the mesopores. One skilled in the art would find this teaching to be transferable to the invention of Ohashi, as it depends primarily on pore size for the stated effect.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that one skilled in the art would not be motivated or have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Tang with Ohashi to arrive at the claimed invention, because the inorganic filler layer (electrical insulation layer) of Tang is not associated with any polypropylene, and thereby presents a fundamentally different structure than claimed, the examiner disagrees, and notes, as stated above and in the rejection, the motivation to modify Ohashi with the nanoparticle pore size of Tang comes from the ability of the nanopores of the inorganic particles to suction the electrolyte by capillary action, firmly holding the electrolyte in the mesopore structure, as is suggested by Tang ([0043]).
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights