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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 57 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 38-39, 41, 48-50 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Publication CN104157819A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Wu.
Regarding claim 38, Wu discloses a battery separator (page 1, technical field, multilayer composite lithium battery separator) comprising:
a free-standing multi-layer structure with first and second major surfaces (Fig 2), the structure comprising:
a microporous (page 2, para 5, polypropylene porous film with 0.01-10 µm pore size) polymer web (page 2, para 8, polyethylene separator layer + polypropylene support layer) characterized by a melting point and having two major surfaces (Fig 2); and
an inorganic material including one or more of nanoparticles or microparticles (page 2, para 8, ceramic coating layer; page 2, para 7 ceramic powder particle size range 0.01-10 µm) deposited from an aqueous dispersion as a first porous layer on one or both of the major surfaces of the microporous polymer web (page 2, para 4, aqueous ceramic slurry coated on PE surface), the first porous layer providing in-plane high-temperature dimensional stability above the melting point of the microporous polymer web (page 2, 3rd to last paragraph, thermal shrinkage rate of less than 3% after being placed at a high temperature of 135°C for 1 hour; page 2, last paragraph, PE layer has a low melting temperature; PE melting temperature is 105-115°C);
a gel-forming material disposed as a second porous layer on the first porous layer (page 2, para 8, polymer coating layer stacked on ceramic coating layer; page 3, Step 3, aqueous PVDF slurry coated to form gel polymer layer), the gel-forming material being laminable to an electrode (page 6, para 6, good adhesion between positive and negative electrodes of the battery).
Regarding claim 39, Wu discloses wherein the microporous polymer web comprises polyethylene (page 2, para 8, polyethylene separator layer).
Regarding claim 41, Wu discloses wherein the second porous layer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (page 3, step 3, PVDF slurry).
Regarding claim 48, Wu discloses wherein the inorganic material comprises an inorganic oxide (page 2, para 7, Al2O3).
Regarding claim 49, Wu discloses wherein the inorganic material comprises alumina (page 2, para 7 Al2O3).
Regarding claim 50, Wu discloses wherein the first porous layer further comprises an organic hydrogen bonding component (page 4, last paragraph, CMC).
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) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014145849A1, hereafter Pekala.
Regarding claim 56, Pekala discloses a battery separator ([0002] separator for lithium-ion battery) comprising:
a free-standing multi-layer structure with first and second major surfaces ([0013] thin freestanding microporous polyolefin web with inorganic surface layer), the structure comprising a microporous polymer web ([0013] microporous polyolefin web) characterized by a melting point and having two major surfaces, an inorganic material ([0013] inorganic surface layer) including one or more of nanoparticles or microparticles ([0013] inorganic surface layer contains colloidal and fumed alumina particles) deposited from an aqueous dispersion as a first porous layer on both of the major surfaces of the microporous polymer web ([0018] aqueous dispersion);
wherein the nanoparticles include individual particles or multi-particle aggregates with a mean size less than or equal to 100 nanometers ([0060] fumed alumina with mean aggregate size of 100nm), and microparticles include individual particles, multi-particle aggregates, or multi-aggregate agglomerates with a mean size of 100 nanometers to 1 micrometer ([0051] fumed alumina with mean aggregate size of 130nm), the first porous layer providing high-temperature dimensional stability above the melting point of the microporous polymer web even as fluid permeability of the unitary multi-layer structure is decreased at elevated temperature ([0002] web exhibits good in-plane dimensional stability (i.e., low shrinkage) at temperatures both above and below the melting point of the base polymer membrane and maintains shutdown properties; at high temperatures, the pores within the bulk structure of the base polymer membrane can begin to collapse or shut down and thereby modify its permeability); and
wherein the first porous layer exhibits a coating ratio and a concentration of microparticles to nanoparticles that causes the structure to exhibit a thermal shrinkage below 5% at 180 °C ([0056] Table 3, 200°C, shrinkage of 2.9%, 2.7%, and 2.2%), and wherein the coating ratio is a weight-to-weight basis of the first porous layer to the microporous polyolefin web.
Pekala is silent on wherein the coating ratio is greater than about 0.5.
As the energy density of the battery is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the coating ratio, with energy density increasing as the coating ratio is decreased (for example by reducing the thickness of the coating), the coating ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the coating ratio in the invention of Pekala to obtain the desired balance between energy density and dimensional stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 38, 40, and 50-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014145849A1, hereafter Pekala, in view of Foreign Publication CN104157819A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Wu.
Regarding claim 38, Pekala discloses a battery separator ([0002] separator for lithium-ion battery) comprising:
a free-standing multi-layer structure with first and second major surfaces ([0013] thin freestanding microporous polyolefin web with inorganic surface layer), the structure comprising:
a microporous polymer web ([0013] microporous polyolefin web) characterized by a melting point and having two major surfaces; and
an inorganic material ([0013] inorganic surface layer) including one or more of nanoparticles or microparticles ([0013] inorganic surface layer contains colloidal and fumed alumina particles) deposited from an aqueous dispersion as a first porous layer on one or both of the major surfaces of the microporous polymer web ([0018] aqueous dispersion), the first porous layer providing in-plane high-temperature dimensional stability above the melting point of the microporous polymer web ([0002] web exhibits good in-plane dimensional stability (i.e., low shrinkage) at temperatures both above and below the melting point of the base polymer membrane and maintains shutdown properties; at high temperatures, the pores within the bulk structure of the base polymer membrane can begin to collapse or shut down and thereby modify its permeability).
Pekala is silent on a gel-forming material disposed as a second porous layer on the first porous layer, the gel-forming material being laminable to an electrode.
In the analogous art of secondary batteries, Wu discloses a gel-forming material disposed as a second porous layer on the first porous layer ([0019] polymer coating layer stacked on ceramic coating layer; [0037] aqueous PVDF slurry coated to form gel polymer layer), the gel-forming material being laminable to an electrode ([0025] good adhesion between positive and negative electrodes of the battery).
Wu further discloses the organic particles in the gel polymer layer to improve the separator’s ability to absorb and retain the electrolyte (page 2, second to last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Pekala to include the further layer of gel-forming material on the inorganic layer as disclosed above by Wu in order to impart an improved ability to absorb and retain the electrolyte, as suggested by Wu.
Regarding claim 40, Pekala discloses wherein the inorganic material is deposited on both major surfaces of the microporous polymer web ([0042] membrane dipped & coated on both surfaces).
Regarding claim 50, Pekala discloses wherein the first porous layer further comprises an organic hydrogen bonding component ([0019] organic hydrogen bonding component).
Regarding claim 51, Pekala discloses wherein the first porous layer further comprises a cross-linking agent reacted with the organic hydrogen bonding component ([0020] boric acid).
Regarding claim 52, Pekala discloses wherein the microporous polymer web exhibits in-plane high temperature dimensional stability at greater than 150C above the melting point of the microporous polymer web ([0056], Table 3, example 6, minimal shrinkage at 200°C; UHMWPE; [0008] melting point of 135°C).
Regarding claim 53, Pekala discloses wherein the inorganic material comprises particles with a sufficient ratio of nanoparticles to microparticles to minimize water content at or above a threshold coating ratio that minimizes thickness of the first porous layer ([0060] mean aggregate size of 100nm, which overlaps with 100nm or less, which is the presently disclosed upper limit for particle size that meets this limitation ([0024] of present specification)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 54, Pekala further discloses a battery ([0023] battery) comprising:
a secondary cell ([0023] battery; [0002] lithium-ion batteries) having at least two electrodes ([0023] electrodes) contained in a package ([0023] wound or stacked in a package) filled with electrolyte ([0023] filled with electrolyte) and separated by the battery separator of claim 38 (see above rejection of claim 38).
Claim(s) 42-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014145849A1, hereafter Pekala, in view of Foreign Publication CN104157819A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Wu, as evidenced by Shutian Yan, Jie Deng, Chulheung Bae, Xinran Xiao, Thermal expansion/shrinkage measurement of battery separators using a dynamic mechanical analyzer, Polymer Testing, Volume 71, 2018, Pages 65-71, ISSN 0142-9418, (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142941818311267), hereafter Yan.
Regarding claim 42, Pekala discloses wherein the first porous layer exhibits a coating ratio and a concentration of microparticles to nanoparticles that causes the structure to exhibit a thermal shrinkage below 5% at 200 °C ([0056] Table 3, 200°C, shrinkage of 2.9%, 2.7%, and 2.2%), wherein the coating ratio is a weight-to-weight basis of the first porous layer to the microporous polyolefin web.
The examiner notes that according to Pekala, after shutdown occurs, where the pores of the separator begin to close due to the liquefication of the polymer at thermal runaway temperatures above its melting point, residual stress and reduced mechanical properties lead to shrinkage ([0006]).
According to Yan, it is known that, for thin, porous, lithium ion battery separators, “with increasing temperatures, polymer separators first expand and then start to shrink before final fracture” (2nd paragraph of Introduction).
Thus, the higher the temperature above the melting point of the polymer, the higher the shrinkage due to the melting polymer filling its own pores as it liquefies more and more. With the thermal shrinkage in Pekala still being lower than 5% even after exposure at 200°C in the demonstrated upper limit in example 8, it necessarily follows that the shrinkage after exposure of the same composite to a lower temperature of 180°C, as claimed, would also retain this “good in-plane dimensional stability” and would not be higher than the percentages disclosed by Pekala in [0056] and Table 3 after exposure to the higher temperature of 200°C.
Regarding claims 43-47, Pekala discloses the importance of controlling the amount of inorganic particles in the coating formulation, particle size distribution of inorganic particles, and the thickness of the coating ([0040]). Pekala further discloses the penetration of colloidal inorganic particles into the membrane which improves peel strength and reduces particle shedding during handling of the web ([0014]), and that increasing the thickness of the coating (thus increasing the coating ratio) did not negatively impact the dimensional stability or Gurley values of the separators (example 6, [0056]).
Pekala is silent on wherein the first porous layer exhibits a nanoparticle concentration of 0% to 22%, 22% to 33%, 33% to 48%, 48% to 67%, or 67% to 100% and the coating ratio is greater than 1.4-0.0036*N, 1.32-0.0291*(N-22), 1-0.0107*(N-33), 0.84-0.0095*(N-48), or 0.66-0.0048*(N-67), wherein N is the nanoparticle concentration in percent form.
As the peel strength is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the nanoparticle concentration, with peel strength increasing as nanoparticle concentration is increased ([0013-0014] penetration of colloidal inorganic particles into the base membrane reduced interfacial stress and helps bond the inorganic surface layer to the membrane), the peel strength would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed nanoparticle concentration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the nanoparticle concentration in the invention of modified Pekala to obtain the desired peel strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
As the energy density of the battery is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the coating ratio, with energy density increasing as the coating ratio is decreased (for example by reducing the thickness of the coating, since a lower coating thickness would reduce the space occupied by the separator, enabling the battery to be made thinner), the coating ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the coating ratio in the invention of modified Pekala to obtain the desired balance between energy density and dimensional stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014145849A1, hereafter Pekala, in view of Foreign Publication CN104157819A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Wu, as stated above for claim 38, further in view of Published Application US20120145468A1, hereafter Waterhouse.
Regarding claim 55, Pekala discloses the difficulties with separator shutdown capability in the field of electric vehicles ([0007]).
Pekala is silent on an electric motor vehicle power train, comprising:
a battery pack providing direct current power to an inverter to produce alternating current power, the battery pack including multiple electrically connected secondary cells, each of the multiple secondary cells having multiple electrodes contained in a package filled with electrolyte and separated by the battery separator of claim 38;
speed reduction gears operatively connected to a set of vehicle wheels; and
an electric motor operatively connected to the speed reduction gears and responding to the alternating current power produced by the inverter to impart motive force to the speed reduction gears and thereby turn the set of vehicle wheels.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Waterhouse discloses an electric motor vehicle power train ([0105] hybrid electric vehicle motor power train 150), comprising:
a battery pack ([0105] battery pack 120) providing direct current power to an inverter ([0105] inverter 156) to produce alternating current power ([0105] providing AC power to motor), the battery pack (120) including multiple electrically connected secondary cells ([0101] cells 122), each of the multiple secondary cells having multiple electrodes contained in a package filled with electrolyte and separated by the battery separator ([0099] “Battery 70 has a pressurized cylindrical metal enclosure 74 for a battery assembly 76 in the form of a long spiral of pressed-together components comprising microporous film 72 positioned between a negative electrode (cathode) sheet 78 and a positive electrode (anode) sheet 80. Battery assembly 76 is set between a top insulator 82 and a bottom insulator 84 and is submerged in electrolyte”);
speed reduction gears operatively connected to a set of vehicle wheels ([0105] speed reduction gears 158 turn wheels 148); and
an electric motor ([0105] electric motor/generator 154) operatively connected to the speed reduction gears ([0105]) and responding to the alternating current power produced by the inverter to impart motive force to the speed reduction gears and thereby turn the set of vehicle wheels ([0105]).
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 Pekala to use the separator in an electric vehicle power train as disclosed by Waterhouse in order to provide a vehicle power train with improved battery separator shutdown capability, as suggested by Pekala, improving safety.
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