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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 13, 19 &20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 28th, 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a polyolefin microporous membrane ([001]).
Chen discloses wherein the thickness of the microporous membrane can range from 1 um to 6um ([0030]) which overlaps the instant claim range of 2 to 30 um.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the thickness of the polyolefin microporous membrane having a thickness of 2 to 30 um.
Chen discloses wherein the puncture strength can range for 1.4 N or more and 3.8 N or less, and more preferably 2.4 N or less, ([0039]), which converts to 1400 gf to 3800 gf or more preferably 2400 gf, which overlaps the instant claim range of 1000 gf to 2000gf.
See MPEP rationale for overlapping ranges above, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin membrane has a puncture strength of 1000 to 2000 gf.
Chen discloses an impedance measurement ([0077]), wherein the impedance is evaluated as less than 1.00 Ω/cm as very good ([0077]).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the impedance is 0.3 to 0.9 Ω/cm2.
Chen discloses wherein the polyolefin resin can be polyethylene ([0044]).
Chen discloses wherein the average molecular weight polyethylene of 1 X 106 or more to 8 X 106 or less ([0048]), which overlaps the instant claim range of weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin microporous membrane is made of polyethylene with a weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the polyolefin resin account for 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and pore-forming agent.
Chen discloses wherein the mass of the polyethylene can range from 50% or more ([0013]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and a pore-forming agent.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin resin account for 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and pore-forming agent.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the tensile strength in the machine direction of the microporous membrane is preferably 230 MPa or more and 400 MPa or less ([0031]), which converts to 2345.35 kgf/cm2 to 4078.86 kgf/cm2 which overlaps the instant claim range of 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile strength in the transverse direction is 100 Mpa or more and 300 Mpa or less ([0032]), which converts to 1019.72 kgf/cm2 -to 3059.15 kgf/cm2, which overlaps the instant claim range of 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein a tensile strength along an MD direction is 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2, and a tensile strength along a TD direction is 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the machine direction elongation is 50 % or more and preferably 120% or less ([0028]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 47 to 98%. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile elongation in the TD direction is 105% or more and 200% or less ([0025]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 63 % to 110 %.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein an elongation along the MD direction is 47 to 98% and an elongation along the TD direction is 63 to 110%.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses wherein a battery separator comprises the polyolefin microporous membrane of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, battery separator, [002], [0013], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising the polyolefin microporous membrane ([0013]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein a tensile strength along an MD direction is 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2, and a tensile strength along a TD direction is 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Chen discloses wherein the tensile strength in the machine direction of the microporous membrane is preferably 230 MPa or more and 400 MPa or less ([0031]), which converts to 2345.35 kgf/cm2 to 4078.86 kgf/cm2 which overlaps the instant claim range of 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile strength in the transverse direction is 100 Mpa or more and 300 Mpa or less ([0032]), which converts to 1019.72 kgf/cm2 -to 3059.15 kgf/cm2, which overlaps the instant claim range of 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein a tensile strength along an MD direction is 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2, and a tensile strength along a TD direction is 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen does not directly disclose wherein an elongation along the MD direction is 47 to 98% and an elongation along the TD direction is 63 to 110%.
Chen discloses wherein the machine direction elongation is 50 % or more and preferably 120% or less ([0028]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 47 to 98%. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile elongation in the TD direction is 105% or more and 200% or less ([0025]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 63 % to 110 %.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein an elongation along the MD direction is 47 to 98% and an elongation along the TD direction is 63 to 110%.
Claim(s) 4 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Nagao (US20180233726).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen does not directly disclose wherein a porosity is 40% to 57%, a maximum pore size is 33 to 48nm, and a gas permeability is 10 to 400 seconds/100ml.
Chen further discloses wherein the pore size is 20nm or more and 40 nm or less ([0036]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 33 to 48 nm. Chen further discloses wherein the gas permeability is 300 seconds/100ml to 500 second/100ml ([0017]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 10 to 400 seconds/ml.
Nagao discloses a polyolefin porous membrane for a battery separator ([0010], [0057]). Nagao further discloses wherein the porous membrane can have a porosity in a range from 20% to 60% ([0071]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 40% to 57% porosity. Nagao teaches that this structure provides improved heat resistance of the separator ([0078]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Nagao to have wherein a porosity is 40% to 57%, a maximum pore size is 33 to 48nm, and a gas permeability is 10 to 400 seconds/100ml. This modification would yield the expected result of improved heat resistance of the separator.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 14, 15, 17 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Taguchi (CN109517210A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 28th, 2023).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses a system of manufacturing the polyolefin microporous membrane of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Chen further discloses wherein the polyolefin solution is extruded through a T-die of a twin-screw extruder and cooled while being taken up by a cooling roller to form a gel-like sheet ([0089]). Chen further discloses wherein the gel-like sheet is biaxially wet stretched through a biaxial stretching machine ([0089]). Chen further discloses wherein a first heat setting treatment and a washing bath are washed to obtain the microporous membrane which is then dried in a dryer ([0089]).
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the system comprises: sequentially comprising, along a production line direction, a dual-spindle extruder, a casting machine, a pore-forming agent removing unit, a first stretching apparatus, a second stretching apparatus, a heat treatment machine and a winding machine.
Taguchi discloses a method for forming a polyolefin microporous membrane ([002]). Taguchi discloses along a production line direction (polyolefin membrane production steps, [0010]), a dual-spindle extruder (twin-screw extruder, [0071]), a casting machine (casting machine, [0075]), a pore-forming agent removing unit (extraction-drying apparatus removes pore-forming agent from stretched sheet, [0080]), a first stretching apparatus (first stretching apparatus, [0080]), a second stretching apparatus (second stretching device, [0081]), a heat treatment machine ([0082]) and a winding machine ([0083]). Taguchi teaches that this method provides for improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte ([0054]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chen with the teachings of Taguchi to have wherein the system comprises: sequentially comprising, along a production line direction, a dual-spindle extruder, a casting machine, a pore-forming agent removing unit, a first stretching apparatus, a second stretching apparatus, a heat treatment machine and a winding machine. This modification would the expected results of improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the second stretching apparatus and the heat treatment machine are integrated together.
Taguchi discloses wherein the second stretching device and heat treatment machine ae integrated together ([0090]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chen with the teachings of Taguchi to have wherein the second stretching apparatus and the heat treatment machine are integrated together. This modification would the expected results of improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the tensile strength in the machine direction of the microporous membrane is preferably 230 MPa or more and 400 MPa or less ([0031]), which converts to 2345.35 kgf/cm2 to 4078.86 kgf/cm2 which overlaps the instant claim range of 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile strength in the transverse direction is 100 Mpa or more and 300 Mpa or less ([0032]), which converts to 1019.72 kgf/cm2 -to 3059.15 kgf/cm2, which overlaps the instant claim range of 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein a tensile strength along an MD direction is 3200 to 5000 kgf/cm2, and a tensile strength along a TD direction is 2800 to 4800 kgf/cm2.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the machine direction elongation is 50 % or more and preferably 120% or less ([0028]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 47 to 98%. Chen further discloses wherein the tensile elongation in the TD direction is 105% or more and 200% or less ([0025]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 63 % to 110 %.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein an elongation along the MD direction is 47 to 98% and an elongation along the TD direction is 63 to 110%.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses an impedance measurement ([0077]), wherein the impedance is evaluated as less than 1.00 Ω/cm as very good ([0077]).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the impedance is 0.3 to 0.9 Ω/cm2.
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the polyolefin resin can be polyethylene ([0044]).
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the polyolefin microporous membrane is made of polyethylene with a weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Chen discloses wherein the average molecular weight polyethylene of 1 X 106 ore more to 8 X 106 or less ([0048]), which overlaps the instant claim range of weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin microporous membrane is made of polyethylene with a weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Taguchi (CN109517210A, see Machine Translation for citations) further in view of Ogata (US20170365834).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the pore-forming agent removing unit comprises a tank, a driving hot roller, a driven hot roller, and a pore-forming agent removal liquid; the tank is a sealed tank, and a polyolefin microporous thin sheet from the casting machine passes through a path which is an open design.
Taguchi discloses an extraction drying apparatus for removing the pore-forming agent, which includes an extraction tank and a dryer ([0080]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the stretched sheet is immersed in an organic solvent to remove the pores ([0109]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the drying can be an air dry ([0111]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the pore forming-agent will adhere to a roller surface allowing the sheet and the roller to be stretched ([0102]). Taguchi teaches that this method provides for improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte ([0054]).
Taguchi does not directly disclose the use of a driving hot roller, and a driven hot roller.
Hansen discloses a method of forming a porous membrane ([0031]), that uses a solvent as a pore forming material ([0010]) and remove the pore forming material ([0037]) Hansen further discloses wherein the membrane sheet after going through the pore forming material enter a washing bath remove the pore forming material and uses rollers 41i, 41j and 41k to move the membrane sheet through the closed washing bath (Fig. 3, [0037],[0065]). Hansen teaches that this method provides method that is less labor intensive ([009]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Taguchi and Hansen to have wherein the pore-forming agent removing unit comprises a tank, a driving hot roller, a driven hot roller, and a pore-forming agent removal liquid; the tank is a sealed tank, and a polyolefin microporous thin sheet from the casting machine passes through a path which is an open design. This modification would the expected results of improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte and be less labor intensive.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Taguchi further in view of Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the pore-forming agent removal liquid is located inside the sealed tank; the driving hot roller is located higher than a liquid level of the pore-forming agent removal liquid; the driven hot roller is immersed in the pore-forming agent removal liquid.
Taguchi discloses an extraction drying apparatus for removing the pore-forming agent, which includes an extraction tank and a dryer ([0080]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the stretched sheet is immersed in an organic solvent to remove the pores ([0109]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the drying can be an air dry ([0111]). Taguchi further discloses wherein the pore forming-agent will adhere to a roller surface allowing the sheet and the roller to be stretched ([0102]). Taguchi teaches that this method provides for improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte ([0054]).
Hansen discloses a driving hot roller located higher than the liquid level of the pore-forming agent removal liquid (41j acts as driving hot roller, washing bath-80 is pore-forming removal solvent) and driven hot rollers immersed in the pore-forming agent removal liquid (41j and 41k acts as driven hot rollers in washing-bath-80). Hansen teaches that this method provides method that is less labor intensive ([009]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Taguchi and Hansen to have wherein the pore-forming agent removal liquid is located inside the sealed tank; the driving hot roller is located higher than a liquid level of the pore-forming agent removal liquid; the driven hot roller is immersed in the pore-forming agent removal liquid. This modification would the expected results of improved affinity between the battery separator and electrolyte and be less labor intensive.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Stokes (US20170084898).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Chen discloses wherein the polyolefin membrane can have a coating layer ([0031]). However, Chen does not directly disclose wherein the separator is one of a ceramic-coated separator, a PVDF-coated separator and an aramid-coated separator.
Stokes discloses a polyolefin membrane that is used for a separator for a battery ([002]). Stokes further discloses wherein the separator has a ceramic coating ([009]). Stokes teaches that this coating provides improved mechanical strength ([009]),
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Stokes to have wherein the separator is one of a ceramic-coated separator. This modification would yield the expected result of improved mechanical strength.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO2020137336A1, see Machine Translation for citations) in view of Taguchi (CN109517210A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 28th, 2023) further in view of Nagao (US20180233726).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Taguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Chen does not directly disclose wherein a porosity is 40% to 57%, a maximum pore size is 33 to 48nm, and a gas permeability is 10 to 400 seconds/100ml.
Chen further discloses wherein the pore size is 20nm or more and 40 nm or less ([0036]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 33 to 48 nm. Chen further discloses wherein the gas permeability is 300 seconds/100ml to 500 second/100ml ([0017]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 10 to 400 seconds/ml.
Nagao discloses a polyolefin porous membrane for a battery separator ([0010], [0057]). Nagao further discloses wherein the porous membrane can have a porosity in a range from 20% to 60% ([0071]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 40% to 57% porosity. Nagao teaches that this structure provides improved heat resistance of the separator ([0078]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Nagao to have wherein a porosity is 40% to 57%, a maximum pore size is 33 to 48nm, and a gas permeability is 10 to 400 seconds/100ml. This modification would yield the expected result of improved heat resistance of the separator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not teach or disclose the elements of amended Claim 1.
The examiner notes that Chen isn’t limited to the resin amounts disclosed in the examples. Chen discloses a range of properties that are reproduced from the rejection above.
The examiner further notes, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0).
See MPEP rationale for overlapping ranges above, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Chen discloses a polyolefin microporous membrane ([001]).
Chen discloses wherein the thickness of the microporous membrane can range from 1 um to 6um ([0030]) which overlaps the instant claim range of 2 to 30 um.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the thickness of the polyolefin microporous membrane having a thickness of 2 to 30 um.
Chen discloses wherein the puncture strength can range for 1.4 N or more and 3.8 N or less, and more preferably 2.4 N or less, ([0039]), which converts to 1400 gf to 3800 gf or more preferably 2400 gf, which overlaps the instant claim range of 1000 gf to 2000gf.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin membrane has a puncture strength of 1000 to 2000 gf.
Chen discloses an impedance measurement ([0077]), wherein the impedance is evaluated as less than 1.00 Ω/cm as very good ([0077]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the impedance is 0.3 to 0.9 Ω/cm2.
Chen discloses wherein the polyolefin resin can be polyethylene ([0044]).
Chen discloses wherein the average molecular weight polyethylene of 1 X 106 or more to 8 X 106 or less ([0048]), which overlaps the instant claim range of weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin microporous membrane is made of polyethylene with a weight average molecular weight of 4.0-8.0 X 106.
Chen does not directly disclose wherein the polyolefin resin account for 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and pore-forming agent.
Chen discloses wherein the mass of the polyethylene can range from 50% or more ([0013]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and a pore-forming agent.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Chen to have wherein the polyolefin resin account for 50% to 60% of a total weight of the polyolefin resin and pore-forming agent.
Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, and Chen discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728