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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 06/11/2026, the following rejection has been withdrawn from the previous office action:
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11
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) 1-10, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20200161618A1, hereafter Adams in view of Foreign Publication WO2015140356A2, hereafter Doyen.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a polymer porous film ([0037] battery separator with microporous polymeric film and a coating layer) comprising:
a first layer ([0037] microporous polymeric film); and
a second layer ([0037] coating layer), wherein
the first layer is porous ([0037] microporous polymeric film),
the first layer has a three-dimensional network structure scaffold ([0040] microporous polymer film has Gurley value of 200-500 seconds, thus at least some pore structure must be continuously interconnected to allow air to flow through),
the second layer is non-porous in an image at a magnification of 50,000x ([0061] coating layer may be nonporous),
a proportion of the second layer is more than 0% and less than 10% ([0059] thickness of coating is less than 1 micron thick; [0043] microporous polymeric film is monolayer that is 15 microns thick: 0.99/15=6.6%), and
the proportion of the second layer is calculated by the following expression (I):
proportion (%) of the second layer = (t2/t0) x 100 (I)
where t0 represents a thickness of the polymer porous film, and t2 represents a thickness of the second layer ([0059] thickness of coating is less than 1 micron thick; [0043] microporous polymeric film is monolayer that is 15 microns thick: 0.99/15=6.6%).
Adams further discloses the potential inclusion of an additive to promote coating adhesion in the microporous polymeric film ([0050-0051]), which the examiner notes suggests improvement in adhesion of the coating to the microporous polymeric film can be improved.
Adams is silent on wherein the first layer and the second layer are formed from continuous drying of a single solution such that the scaffold forming the three-dimensional network structure continuously transitions into the second layer.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Doyen discloses wherein the first layer and the second layer are formed from continuous drying of a single solution ([0101] Fig 4, skin 121 forms the outer surface of the membrane layer 12, and an edge 123 to seal the membrane which is obtained when the membrane is directly cast on the outer layer 111 as a polymeric solution) such that a scaffold forming the three-dimensional network structure of the first layer (12) continuously transitions into the second layer (121) (Fig 4, [0101] membrane layer 12 with skin 121; Fig 4 shows continuous transition between skin 121 and membrane layer 12).
Doyen further discloses that there are known risks of delamination in separator membranes due to lower adhesive strength between layers ([0003]), and that the pores of the skin are typically smaller than the pores of the membrane layer ([0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Adams to use a continuous transition between the first and second layer through the casting of the same polymer solution as disclosed by Doyen in order to integrate the layers together to reduce or eliminate the risk of peeling/delamination, and further to seal the membrane layer, as suggested by Doyen.
The examiner further notes that the claims are directed to a polymer porous film and not a method thus "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Adams discloses wherein the proportion of the second layer is from 2 to 8% ([0059] thickness of coating is less than 1 micron thick; [0043] microporous polymeric film is monolayer that is 15 microns thick: 0.99/15=6.6%).
Regarding claim 3, Adams further discloses wherein the thickness of the second layer is less than 1 micron thick, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.5 to 1.5 µm ([0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Adams discloses wherein the first layer has an average pore size from 0.01-1 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 500 to 2000 nm ([0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Adams discloses wherein the three-dimensional network structure includes a continuous pore structure ([0040] microporous polymer film has Gurley value of 200-500 seconds, thus at least some pore structure must be continuously interconnected to allow air to flow through).
Regarding claim 6, Adams discloses the polymer porous film including at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene-(vinyl alcohol) copolymer ([0041] ethylenevinyl alcohol), polyvinylidene difluoride ([0041] PVDF), and polyvinyl alcohol ([0041] polyvinyl alcohols).
Regarding claim 7, Adams discloses the polymer porous film having an air permeability from 32 to 600 s/100ml ([0040] microporous polymer film has Gurley value of 200-500 seconds).
Regarding claim 8, Adams discloses the polymer porous film having a porosity from 50 to 72% ([0040] 50 to 70% porosity).
Regarding claim 9, Adams discloses having a thickness from 16 to 25 µm ([0043] microporous polymeric film is monolayer that is 15 microns thick; [0059] thickness of coating is less than 1 micron thick).
Regarding claim 10, Adams discloses a separator for a battery ([0037] battery separator comprising microporous polymeric film and coating layer), comprising the polymer porous film according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Adams discloses a battery (abstract, battery comprising described separator; [0169] lithium battery separator; [0084] composite with anode, cathode, separator) comprising:
a first electrode ([0084] cathode);
a separator ([0084] separator);
a second electrode ([0084] anode); and
an electrolyte solution ([0087] electrolyte salt in liquid solvent), wherein
the second electrode has a polarity that is different from a polarity of the first electrode ([0084] anode and cathode),
the separator separates the second electrode from the first electrode ([0084] anode and cathode each in direct contact with separator as part of composite), and
the separator includes the polymer porous film according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Adams further discloses wherein the second layer and the scaffold forming the three-dimensional network structure of the first layer are the same material ([0041] PVDF microporous polymeric film; [0057] PVDF coating).
Regarding claim 17, Adams further discloses wherein the second layer comprises pores with a maximum Feret diameter of 100 nm or less ([0061] coating layer may be nonporous).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20200161618A1, hereafter Adams in view of Foreign Publication WO2015140356A2, hereafter Doyen, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20170250446A1, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, modified Adams discloses an electrode unit ([0084] composite comprising separator and electrode) comprising: the polymer porous film according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1); and an electrode ([0084] electrode in composite), wherein the polymer porous film and the electrode are made into a single-piece member ([0084] separator and electrode are layered in a composite).
Modified Adams is silent on wherein the polymer porous film is adhered to a surface of the electrode by forming the polymer porous film on a surface of the electrode.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Kim discloses wherein the separator film is adhered by forming the separator film on a surface of the electrode ([0114] solution casting to form electrolyte membrane on negative electrode to allow even disposition of the membrane thereon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Adams to form the polymer porous film directly on the surface of the electrode by solution casting, as disclosed by Kim, in order to allow an even disposition of the polymer porous film thereon, as suggested by Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 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 since a solvent is essential for Doyen, combining Adams and Doyen would force the use of a solvent in Adams, which is fundamentally incompatible with Adams' solvent-free dry process, the examiner disagrees. Adams does not require a solvent-free dry process, but only expresses a preference (see [0090] of Adams, the dry methods are all only exemplary ways for forming the microporous film). ”A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123 (I)). That being said, and as stated in the rejection, the modification of Adams with Doyen results in the membrane + coating being a continuous transition between the two layers, resulting from drying of the same applied solution, as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant's remarks that modifying the film of Adams with the teachings of Doyen would require wholesale replacement of the film of Adams with the film of Doyen, the examiner disagrees, and notes that 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, Doyen was relied upon for the teaching of the continuous film transition between the two layers resulting from the drying of the casted polymer solution.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant's remarks that the office is presumed to be taking official notice of the alleged facts that peeling is a risk and such a continuous transition would reduce such risk, the examiner disagrees. No such official notice has been taken, and as stated in the rejection, both Adams and Doyen provide evidence to the risk of this problem (Adams, [0050-0051] notes the potential inclusion of an additive to promote coating adhesion in the microporous polymeric film; Doyen, [0003] notes the well documented risks of delamination in separator membranes due to lower adhesive strength), and one skilled in the art would have understood the basic principle of integrating layers together in order to reduce the risk of delamination.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant's remarks that Doyen does not explain the purpose of any alleged continuous transition between layers nor acknowledge any effect to such transition, much less preventing peeling risk, the examiner notes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated above, one skilled in the art would have understood the basic principle of integrating layers together in order to reduce the risk of delamination.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant's remarks that the office may have misinterpreted claim 1, since the language in claim 1 is directed to the transition of the “three-dimensional network structure” and no motivation has been provided to modify the teachings of Adams such that the three-dimensional network structure transitions, the examiner disagrees. The claim recites "the first layer has a three-dimensional network structure and a scaffold forming the three-dimensional network structure continuously transitions into the second layer," which according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, is understood to mean the first layer continuously transitions into the second layer, since the only recited component of the first layer is the three-dimensional network structure, and the only recited component of the three-dimensional network structure is the scaffold, which performs the transition.
Conclusion
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