DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 3, 5–17, 19, 22, 24, and 25 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, and 5–12 are being treated on their merits.
Claims 13–17, 19, 22, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2, 4, 18, 20, 21, and 23 are canceled.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0055724 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1, 3, and 5–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a ceramic" in line 14. Claim 1 has previously recited the limitation "a ceramic" in line 5. It is unclear if "a ceramic" recited in line 14 is further limiting or referencing "a ceramic" recited in line 5. The limitation "a ceramic" in line 5 has provided antecedent basis for the term "ceramic." However, the term "ceramic" in line 14 is not preceded with "the" or "said" indicating the term is referring to the previously recited term nor "second" indicating the term is not referring to the previously recited term.
Claim 3 recites, in the preamble, "[t]he composite separator according to claim 2." Claim 2 is canceled. The dependency of claim 2 is unclear.
Claims 5–12 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 5–12 are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites, in the preamble, "[t]he composite separator according to claim 2." Claim 2 is canceled. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 5–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2021/0305658 A1, hereinafter Cho) in view of Sato (JP 2020-155208 A; see English language equivalent, US 2022/0158301 A1) and Sung et al. (WO 2020/130723 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2021/0028428 A1; herein after Sung).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Cho discloses a composite separator, comprising
a porous matrix membrane (11, [0064]) and
a composite coating (12) coated on at least one side of the porous matrix membrane (11, [0064]),
wherein the porous matrix membrane has a pore size of 10–400 nm (see pore size, [0071]);
wherein the composite coating (12) comprises a ceramic and a polymer (see coating layer, [0077]),
the ceramic and the polymer are mutually dispersed (FIG. 1, [0121]),
wherein the porous matrix membrane (11) is coated with the composite coating (12) on one side of the at least one side and a ceramic coating (13) on another side (FIG. 1, [0064]); and
wherein the ceramic coating (13) comprises a binder and a ceramic (see coating layer, [0077]),
the binder comprises any one or a combination of at least two of polyvinylidene fluoride, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, polyacrylic acid, polyvinyl alcohol or styrene-butadiene rubber (see binder, [0045]).
Cho does not explicitly disclose:
the polymer comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a vinylidene fluoride-octafluoroisobutylene copolymer, a vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, polymethyl methacrylate or polystyrene acrylate;
wherein the polymer has a molecular mass of 300000–2000000;
wherein the polymer has a molecular mass of 400000–1800000;
Sato discloses a composite separator, comprising a porous matrix membrane (see three-layered polyolefin microporous film, [0152]) and a composite coating coated on at least one side of the porous matrix membrane (see coating liquid 1, [0232]), wherein the composite coating comprises a ceramic and a polymer (see coating liquid 1, [0231]), the ceramic and the polymer are mutually dispersed (see coating liquid 1, [0231]), the polymer comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a vinylidene fluoride-octafluoroisobutylene copolymer, a vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, polymethyl methacrylate or polystyrene acrylate (TABLE 1, [0250]); wherein the polymer has a molecular mass of 300000–2000000 (TABLE 1, [0200]); wherein the polymer has a molecular mass of 400000–1800000 (TABLE 1, [0200]) to improve the production yield (TABLE 1, [0175]). Cho and Sato are analogous because they are directed to composite separators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the composite separator of Cho with the polymer and ceramic coating of Sato in order to improve the production yield.
Modified Cho does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ceramic has a specific surface area of 1–12 m2/g;
Sung discloses a composite separator comprising a ceramic having a specific surface area of 1–12 m2/g to improve adhesion to an electrode and lower the resistance (see specific surface area, [0049]). Cho and Sung are analogous because they are directed to composite separators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the ceramic of modified Cho with the specific surface area of Sung in order to improve adhesion to an electrode and lower the resistance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the ceramic coating (13) has a thickness of 0.5–5 μm (see thickness, [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the porous matrix membrane (11) comprises a polyolefin matrix membrane (see porous substrate, [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the ceramic comprises any one or a combination of at least two of boehmite, alumina, magnesium hydroxide, magnesium oxide, barium titanate, zinc oxide or barium sulfate (see inorganic particles, [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the composite coating (12) has a thickness of 0.5–5 μm (see thickness, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the composite coating (12) has a thickness of 0.5–10 μm (see thickness, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composite separator:
wherein the composite coating (12) has a thickness of 1–5 μm (see thickness, [0067]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2021/0305658 A1) in view of Sato (JP 2020-155208 A; see English language equivalent, US 2022/0158301 A1) and Sung (WO 2020/130723 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2021/0028428 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2016/0079007 A1, hereinafter Otsuka).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a composite separator:
wherein the polymer has a particle size of 0.1–10 μm.
Otsuka discloses a composite separator (see separator, [0166]) comprising a polymer having a particle size of 0.1–10 μm to prevent the deterioration of electric properties (see diameter, [0102]). Cho and Otsuka are analogous because they are directed to composite separators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the polymer of modified Cho with the particle size as taught by Otsuka in order to prevent the deterioration of electric properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2021/0305658 A1) in view of Sato (JP 2020-155208 A; see English language equivalent, US 2022/0158301 A1) and Sung (WO 2020/130723 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2021/0028428 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0207190 A1, hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 12, modified Cho discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a composite separator:
wherein the polymer has a glass transition temperature of -60–100° C.
Hu discloses a composite separator, comprising a porous matrix membrane (see polymer composite membrane, [0021]) and a composite coating coated on at least one side of the porous matrix membrane (see polymer composite membrane, [0021]), wherein the composite coating comprises a ceramic and a polymer (see polymer composite membrane, [0021]), the ceramic and the polymer are mutually dispersed (see polymer composite membrane, [0021]), the polymer comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a vinylidene fluoride-octafluoroisobutylene copolymer, a vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, polymethyl methacrylate or polystyrene acrylate (see polymer composite membrane, [0048]); wherein the polymer has a glass transition temperature of -60–100° C (see glass transition temperature, [0110]) to balance manufacturing performance of the ceramic membrane without affecting the bonding strength of the ceramic membrane (see glass transition temperature, [0042]). Cho and Hu are analogous because they are directed to composite separators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the polymer of modified Cho with the glass transition temperature of Hu in order to balance manufacturing performance of the ceramic membrane without affecting the bonding strength of the ceramic membrane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5–12 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
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights