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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, claims 1-4 and 6-8, in the reply filed on October 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (WO 2016/073580 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Yen teaches a microporous sheet product 101 comprising an inner layer 103 (porous film) and a pair of outer layers 105 and 107 (porous layers), the inner layer 103 being sandwiched between outer layers 105 and 107 (see pg. 22, lines 10-15). Inner layer 103 may comprise a thermoplastic polymer, a non-cross-linked elastomer, and a compatibilizing agent (see pg. 13, lines 26-31). Outer layers 105 and 107 may be identical to one another and may differ from inner layer 103 only in that outer layers 105 and 107 do not include a non-cross-linked elastomer (see pg. 22, lines 17-19).
As a thermoplastic polymer, a polyamide polymer (resin having an amide bond) may be used (see pg. 14, lines 7-9).
As a non-cross-linked elastomer, a polyolefin elastomer (polyolefin porous film) may be used (see pg. 15, lines 2-4).
The layers of the microporous sheet product 101 may have micropores formed therein, wherein the pores may have an aspect ratio of at least 2 (see pg. 13, lines 29-31; pg. 21, lines 9-11). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Yen teaches layers of the microporous sheet product may comprise one or more inorganic fillers, which may improve the porosity and rate of swelling of the sheet product. Where the sheet product is used as a battery separator, such swelling creates beneficial cell stack pressure (see pg. 17, lines 12-15). The filler is preferably present in an amount of about 0-20% by volume (see pg. 17, lines 28-29).
Although Yen does not explicitly teach a weight percentage of the inorganic filler, rather than a volume percentage, Yen’s teaching that the inclusion of the inorganic filler may may improve the porosity and rate of swelling of the sheet establishes that the amount of the inorganic filler is a known result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a known result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and is thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 6-8, Yen teaches that the microporous sheet product may be utilized as a separator for an electrochemical battery, wherein the separator is provided between adjacent electrodes of opposite polarity (positive electrode; negative electrode) to prevent direct contact between the oppositely charged electrode plates since such direct contact would result in a short circuit of the battery (see pg. 1, lines 28-30). The electrochemical battery may be a lithium storage battery, wherein the electrolyte is typically an organic solution of lithium salt, such as lithium trifluoromethyl sulfonate, lithium tetrafluoro borate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, or another lithium salt (nonaqueous electrolyte).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art neither teaches nor suggests the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer of claim 2, specifically wherein not less than 50% of all Ar1 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond, not more than 50% of all Ar3 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond, and 10% to 70% of all Ar1 and Ar3 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond.
The closest prior art is Sawamoto et al. (hereinafter “Sawamoto”) (JP 2014194922 A; see English machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
44
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sawamoto teaches an aromatic polyamide porous membrane and a secondary battery separator using the same (see paragraph 1). The aromatic polyamide is preferably a block copolymer of a flexible aromatic polyamide portion and a rigid aromatic polyamide portion (see paragraph 14). The flexible aromatic polyamide portion in the present invention refers to a polyamide in which at least one of Ar1 and Ar2 in the following chemical formula (1) has a flexible structure represented by any one of a group (a) in the chemical formula (2). The rigid aromatic polyamide moiety refers to a polyamide having a rigid structure in which both Ar1 and Ar2 in the chemical formula (1) are represented by (b) in the chemical formula (2) (not more than 50% of all Ar3 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond) (see paragraphs 15-19).
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
242
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 2:
In the group (a) of chemical formula (2), X and Y may each comprise –SO2– (not less than 50% of all Ar1 have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond) (see paragraph 20).
Because Sawamoto teaches that only the flexible aromatic polyamide portion includes one of a group (a) in the chemical formula (2), only the flexible aromatic polyamide portion can contain –SO2–. Sawamoto thus fails to teach the limitation of claim 2 requiring that 10% to 70% of all Ar1 and Ar3 each have a structure in which two aromatic rings are connected by a sulfonyl bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727