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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 5, 2023 & February 3, 2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11,14-15 & 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. CN 106252571A.
With respect to claim 1, Zhao teaches a separator for a power storage device (a multilayer porous membrane for lithium ion battery; See the Abstract) that comprises a substrate which is a polyolefin microporous membrane including a polyolefin as a main component (2-2 represents the PMIA micro-porous layer; Description according to claim, paragraph 14), and a covering layer disposed on at least one surface of the substrate (4-2 represents SBR & Al2O3 represents 3-1; Description according to claim, paragraph 14; Rig. 5) , wherein: the covering layer comprises an inorganic filler and polymer particles of a thermoplastic polymer (4-2 represents SBR & Al2O3 represents 3-1; Description according to claim, paragraph 14; Fig. 5), the amount of polymer particles in the covering layer is 1 part by weight to 50 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic filler in the covering layer (inorganic particles and binder is 60: 40 to 99.9: 0.1, preferably 80: 20 to 99: 1; more preferably is 90: 10 to 99: 1; a porous layer containing inorganic particles section, paragraph 9), and the separator satisfies at least one of the following features (i) to (v):.(l the covering layer is formed in an inclined manner so as to be thicker toward the protruding polymer particles (ii) at least 20% of the protruding polymer particles contact with the surface of the substrate;(iii) the covering layer has 180" peel strength from the substrate of 200 gf/cm or greater;(iv) the average number of protruding polymer particles adjacent to any one protruding polymer particle is less than 2;(v) the ratio of the mean particle size of the protruding polymer particles with respect to the mean particle size of the inorganic filler is greater than 10 ((ii) at least 20% of the protruding polymer particles contact with the surface of the substrate; addressed below).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, the polymer particles include at least one copolymer selected from the group consisting of copolymers containing (meth)acrylate as a monomer, styrene-butadiene copolymer, and fluorine atom-containing copolymers (4-2 represents SBR & Al2O3 represents 3-1; Description according to claim, paragraph 14; Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 18, the polymer particles are primary particles(4-2 represents SBR; Description according to claim, paragraph 14; primary particles Fig. 5). With respect to claim 20, the heat shrinkage factor in the TD direction at 130°C for 1 hour is 5% or lower (multilayer porous membrane after 120 ℃ processing 1h, the MD direction heat shrinkage of 1.0% and in TD direction heat shrinkage of 0.5%; Table1 ).
With respect to claim 21, the heat shrinkage factor in the TD direction at 150°C for 1 hour is 5% or lower (multilayer porous membrane after 120 ℃ processing 1h, the MD direction heat shrinkage of 1.0% and in TD direction heat shrinkage of 0.5%; Table1 ).
With respect to claim 22, power storage device comprising a separator for a power storage device (a multilayer porous membrane for lithium ion battery; See the Abstract).
Zhao does not teach suggest: the polymer particles include polymer particles protruding from the covering layer, to at least 0.1 times the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer (claim 1); (ii) at least 20% of the protruding polymer particles contact with the surface of the substrate (claim 1); the number of protruding polymer particles is at least 50% of the total number of polymer particles in the covering layer (claim 8); the number of other protruding polymer particles present within a radius of 10 pm from any one protruding polymer particle is less than 60 (claim 9); the total amount of metal cations in the covering layer is 0.1 ppm to 100 ppm, based on the total weight of the covering layer (claim 11); either one of the covering layer disposed on at least one side of the substrate has a thickness of 0.3 µm to 1.3 µm (claim 14); the primary particles has a mean particle size of 1 µm to 10 µm (claim 19).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the polymer particles including polymer particles protruding from the covering layer, to at least 0.1 times the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer (claim 1); in the separator of Zhao, in order to increase adhesion between the coating layer and polyolefin microporous membrane. Zhao teaches the thickness of the inorganic particles have an average particle diameter (D50) is 0.1 to 1 microns, preferably 0.2 to 0.6 microns. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 4. Zhao teaches the average particle diameter of microsphere adhesive is 0.01 to 0.50 μm. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 6. When the adhesive particle is 0.50 and the inorganic material is 0.2, the polymer is 2.5x the inorganic material. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the larger polymer particles to protrude from the coating layer, even minimally. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to (ii) at least 20% of the protruding polymer particles being in contact with the surface of the substrate (claim 1); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao, in order to increase adhesion between the coating layer and polyolefin microporous membrane. Zhao teaches the thickness of the inorganic particles have an average particle diameter (D50) is 0.1 to 1 microns, preferably 0.2 to 0.6 microns. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 4. Zhao teaches the average particle diameter of microsphere adhesive is 0.01 to 0.50 μm. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 6. When the adhesive particle is 0.50 and the inorganic material is 0.2, the polymer is 2.5x the inorganic material. Thus, its reasonable to expect the larger polymer particles to protrude from the coating layer, even minimally. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the number of protruding polymer particles being at least 50% of the total number of polymer particles in the covering layer (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao, in order to increase adhesion between the coating layer and polyolefin microporous membrane. Zhao teaches the thickness of the inorganic particles have an average particle diameter (D50) is 0.1 to 1 microns, preferably 0.2 to 0.6 microns. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 4. Zhao teaches the average particle diameter of microsphere adhesive is 0.01 to 0.50 μm. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 6. When the adhesive particle is 0.50 and the inorganic material is 0.2, the polymer is 2.5x the inorganic material. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the larger polymer particles to protrude from the coating layer, even minimally. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the number of other protruding polymer particles present within a radius of 10 µm from any one protruding polymer particle is less than 60 (claim 9); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the total amount of metal cations in the covering layer is 0.1 ppm to 100 ppm, based on the total weight of the covering layer (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao, to enhance thermal stability. Zhao teaches the mass ratio of inorganic particles and binder is 60: 40. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 9. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to either one of the covering layer disposed on at least one side of the substrate having a thickness of 0.3 µm to 1.3 µm (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Zhao teaches the coating thickness is 2 microns. See Embodiment 1. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the primary particles having a mean particle size of 1 µm to 10 µm (claim 19); in the separator of Zhao, in order to increase adhesion between the coating layer and polyolefin microporous membrane. Zhao teaches the average particle diameter of microsphere adhesive is 0.01 to 0.50 μm. See the “a porous layer containing inorganic particles” section, paragraph 6. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. CN 106252571A in view of Uchida WO 2021006357.
Zhao teaches a separator for a power storage device as described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including a SBR binder un the coating layer (4-2 represents SBR; Description according to claim, paragraph 14; Fig. 5).
Zhao does not teach suggest: a methylene chloride- soluble portion of from 0.05 parts by weight to 0.80 parts by weight with respect to the total weight of the separator for a power storage device (claim 10); the covering layer includes a water-soluble polymer (claim 12); the amount of water-soluble polymer is 0.04 parts by weight or greater and less than 2 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic filler (claim 13); the polymer particles comprise a copolymer including (meth)acrylic acid, butyl (meth)acrylate and ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate as monomers (claim 16); the polymer particles comprise a copolymer including a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate as a monomer (claim 17).
Uchida teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a methylene chloride- soluble portion of from 0.05 parts by weight to 0.80 parts by weight with respect to the total weight of the separator for a power storage device (butyl methacrylate; See “Specific examples of the binder polymer” section 3; claim 10); the covering layer includes a water-soluble polymer (butyl methacrylate; See “Specific examples of the binder polymer” section 3; claim 12); the polymer particles comprise a copolymer including (meth)acrylic acid, butyl (meth)acrylate and ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate as monomers (butyl methacrylate; See “Specific examples of the binder polymer” section 3; claim 16); the polymer particles comprise a copolymer including a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate as a monomer (butyl methacrylate; See “Specific examples of the binder polymer” section 3; claim 17).
Zhao and Uchida are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating a multilayer porous membrane with a coating layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer. See Uchida Abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a methylene chloride- soluble portion of the separator with butyl methacrylate of Uchida; as the polymer particles of Zhao, because Uchida teaches the equivalence of SBR and butyl methacrylate as polymer in the inorganic particles of the coating layer. See “Specific examples of the binder polymer” section for styrene-butadiene copolymer section 2, butyl methacrylate section 3).
Therefore, because these polymer particles were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute butyl methacrylate for the styrene-butadiene copolymer. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). MPEP 2144.06. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). With respect to a methylene chloride- soluble portion of the separator of from 0.05 parts by weight to 0.80 parts by weight with respect to the total weight as "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
. With respect to the amount of water-soluble polymer being 0.04 parts by weight or greater and less than 2 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic filler (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao in view of Uchida, in order to increase adhesion between the coating layer and polyolefin microporous membrane. Zhao teaches the inorganic particles and binder ratio is 60: 40 to 99.9: 0.1, preferably 80: 20 to 99: 1; more preferably is 90: 10 to 99: 1. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. CN 106252571A in view of Thery et al. US. Pub. 2013/0122392.
Zhao teaches a separator for a power storage device with a coating layer including inorganic particles and a binder polymer. See the Abstract.
Zhao does not teach suggest: the average value for the slope L2/L1 of the covering layer is 1.2 or greater, where L1 is the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer, and L2 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outer surface of the inorganic filler of the covering layer formed in the inclined manner ( claim 2); the average value for the coverage factor (L2 - L1)/(L3 - L1) of the protruding section of the protruding polymer particles is 0.4 or greater, where L1 is the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer, L2 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outer surface of the inorganic filler of the covering layer formed in the inclined manner, and L3 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outlines of the protruding polymer particles( claim 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
266
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thery teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the average value for the slope L2/L1 of the covering layer is 1.2 or greater, where L1 is the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer, and L2 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outer surface of the inorganic filler of the covering layer formed in the inclined manner (incline; [0034]; claim 2); the average value for the coverage factor (L2 - L1)/(L3 - L1) of the protruding section of the protruding polymer particles is 0.4 or greater, where L1 is the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer, L2 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outer surface of the inorganic filler of the covering layer formed in the inclined manner, and L3 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outlines of the protruding polymer particles (incline; [0034]; claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the membrane incline of Thery, in the separator of Zhao, in order to improve distribution of electrolyte coverage in electrochemical environments. With respect to the average value for the slope L2/L1 of the covering layer is 1.2 or greater, where L1 is the thickness of the inorganic filler portion of the covering layer, and L2 is the maximum distance from the substrate-covering layer boundary to the outer surface of the inorganic filler of the covering layer formed in the inclined manner; it would have been obvious in the separator of Zhao in view of Thery, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723