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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al in view of Shinohara et al (JP 2001-023602 and its machine translation).
Suzuki et al disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode and a separator between them, wherein the multi-layer separator comprises a porous layer on a porous substrate (instant claims 6 and 7) comprising a nitrogen-containing aromatic polymer A (heat-resistant resin) and an aromatic polymer B, and the nitrogen-containing aromatic resin preferably comprises a polyamide (aramid [0033], examples; instant claims 4 and 5),
The instant specification teaches that the first and second derivatives are values representing the stress necessary to elongate (deform) and change in magnitude of elongation (ease of deformation). While the reference fails to specifically teach these values, the reference material includes a porous film (base material) and a porous layer comprising a heat-resistant polymer as discussed above. The reference material would have a similar mechanical strength as the instantly claimed separator given the similarity between the base and layer of the reference and that of the instant invention (instant specification [0016]-[0023]). The instant specification further teaches the impact absorption energy as claimed is also related to the structural details of the separator laminate as discussed above (instant specification [0056]).
The instant specification teaches that the claimed maximum value or a second derivative value and the impact absorption energy properties are achieved by the separator having a weight by per unit of 4 to 20 g/m2, an air permeability of 100 s/100mL to 350 s/ 100mL, a porosity of 20 to 80% by volume, and a thickness of 6 to 25 microns ([0031]-[0036], [0050]-[0055]).
The reference material comprises a porous polyolefin base having preferably 95% by volume of a polyolefin-based resin (preferably ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene), an air permeability of 30 s/ 100 cc to 500 s/ 100 cc, a thickness of 4 to 20 microns (preferably 4 top 11 microns), high porosity, and wherein the air permeability and thickness is chosen to improve the strength of the laminated body and maintain the shape stability at high temperatures.
The reference porous layer comprises the nitrogen-containing aromatic polymer (aramid) and a filler, and has a thickness of 0.5 to 15 microns, a filler content of preferably 30 to 90% by volume, overlapping the preferred ranges of the instant porous layer.
With respect to the weight per unit are of the porous layer, the reference is silent, however, as discussed above, the reference material comprises similar components in similar amounts and thicknesses, and having similar properties (such as air permeability). Therefore, given the teachings of the reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material of the reference to have a weight per unit area coverage meeting the limitations of the instant claim 3.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed weight per unit are coverage through routine experimentation and optimization of the porous coating layer on the separator to achieve optimal ion-permeability of the separator and physical strength improving the performance of the separator.
Suzuki teaches that the layer is applied to the porous layer may be applied by a known method, including a bar coating method. However, the reference fails to specifically teach the solvent impregnation of the porous base and the bar coating.
Shinohara et al disclose a method of preparing a porous film comprising a heat-resistant layer, wherein the layer is applied to a porous base, wherein the porous base is impregnated with solvent prior to applying the heat-resistant porous layer to suppress the penetration of the heat-resistant layer by preserving the pore size of the porous base layer and improve shutdown performance of the battery. Layers in some examples are coated at a thickness of 100 microns using the bar coater, therefore the clearance falls within the claimed range of 80 to 140 microns [0043]). Furthermore, while the thickness of the layer falls within the applicant’s claimed range and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any clearance which resulted in the layer thickness and coating uniformity desired by the user through routine experimentation and optimization of separator and battery properties.
Given that the porous base and the porous layer of the reference comprises similar material in similar amounts and layer thicknesses, and has a high porosity and air permeability with the goal of increasing strength and decreasing deformation of the separator, and given the coating process, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the separator of Suzuki et al to possess similar properties and inherently meet the limitations of the instant claims 1 and 2 absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Suzuki et al, wherein the heat-resistant layer is applied using the bar coater and solvent impregnation of Shinohara et al to prepare a separator achieving large pore size and improved shutdown performance of the battery.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al.
Shinohara et al has been discussed above and further disclose a porous base layer and a heat-resistant layer, used in a battery comprising an electrolyte, positive electrode, and negative electrode (instant claims 6 and 7; [0007], claim 1).
The reference material comprises a porous polyolefin base having a polyolefin-based resin (preferably ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene), an air permeability of 2300 s/ 100 cc to 2700 s/ 100 cc, a thickness of 3 to 30 microns (preferably 5 to 25 microns), high porosity (30 to 80 % by volume), and wherein the air permeability and thickness is chosen to improve the strength of the laminated body and maintain the shape stability at high temperatures ([0007], [0009]-[0012]).
The reference porous layer comprises the nitrogen-containing aromatic polymer (aramid) and a filler, and has a thickness of 1 to 30 microns, a filler content of preferably 25 to 100% by weight of the resin ([0014]-[0016]), overlapping the preferred ranges of the instant porous layer.
The material is prepared by a two step process of applying the heat-resistant layer to the porous film base, wherein the base is impregnated by a solvent to prevent the heat-resistant layer leaching into the base and blocking the pores to improve shutdown performance ([0011], , [0017], [0018], and further improve the coating uniformity of the layer. The examples use a bar coater having a clearance of 100 microns ([0043]), however the thickness of the layer falls within the applicant’s claimed range and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any clearance which resulted in the layer thickness and coating uniformity desired by the user through routine experimentation and optimization of separator and battery properties.
Given that the porous base and the porous layer of the reference comprises similar material in similar amounts and layer thicknesses, and has a high porosity and air permeability with the goal of increasing strength and decreasing deformation of the separator, and given the coating process, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the separator of Suzuki et al to possess similar properties and inherently meet the limitations of the instant claims 1 and 2 absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to the weight per unit are of the porous layer, the reference is silent, however, as discussed above, the reference material comprises similar components in similar amounts and thicknesses, and having similar properties (such as air permeability). Therefore, given the teachings of the reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material of the reference to have a weight per unit area coverage meeting the limitations of the instant claim 3.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed weight per unit are coverage through routine experimentation and optimization of the porous coating layer on the separator to achieve optimal ion-permeability of the separator and physical strength improving the performance of the separator.
Therefore, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of the reference to prepare a separator and battery wherein the materials are selected from the teachings of the reference above, wherein the resultant material includes the components in amounts and having the thicknesses and properties as instantly claimed.
Given that the resultant material being prepared by a solvent impregnation and bar coating method in combination with the additional factors and properties taught by the instant specification to achieve the claimed properties, one of skill in the art to expect the material of the reference to possess the claimed properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended the independent claim to recite that the porous layer is formed by applying to one surface of the polyolefin film, a heat-resistant resin layer using a coating bar having a clearance of 80 to 140 microns, and impregnating a surface of the polyolefin porous film opposite to the one surface with a solvent.
Applicant has previously argued that the references failed to teach the production method, which was not claimed the claims argued that the references of record do not fairly teach or suggest a separator having a porous layer comprising a heat-resistant resin, and wherein a maximum value of a second derivative value being not less than 0.15 based on a first derivative value at intervals of 0.5mm of an elongation amount in a range of a value X on a stress-strain curve as set forth by the instant claim 1. Specifically, applicant has argued that the separators of the references would not meet the limitations of the instant claims based solely on the type of material and heat-resistant resin and that the production method as now recited is critical to achieving the properties as claimed. While the method of coating is a product-by-process limitation, applicant has argued and pointed to the experimental evidence in the specification as demonstrating the criticality and that the process does result in a materially different product than that not formed by the process (remarks, pages 7 and 8).
The arguments to Hasegawa et al, specifically that the reference teaches the heat-resistant layer is partially impregnated into the porous base layer (see abstract), are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
The broadest teachings of the specification recite that the porous layer as claimed (which would presumably meet the limitations of the claimed features including the first and second derivatives) may be produced by “a method of producing the porous layer and the separator may be, for example, a method involving: applying a coating solution to one or both surfaces of the porous film, the coating solution containing the resin contained in the porous layer; and depositing the porous layer by drying the coating solution. ([0058])” Furthermore, the instant specification teaches that the “method of applying the coating solution to the porous film is not limited to any particular one. As the coating solution applying method, a conventionally publicly known method can be employed. Specific examples of such a method include a gravure coater method, a dip coater method, a bar coater method, and a die coater method. (instant specification, [0061])”
These broadest limitations for preparing the porous layer do not require the method of using a bar coater and opposite surface impregnation method, which are described by the specification as two distinct preferred method modifications, and that the they are not required for use together to achieve the claimed invention (instant specification, [0062]). The specification states that the bar coating method is an option to control and adjust the weight per unit area, which the instant specification teaches is what affects the rigidity and control the “maximum value of the second derivative value” to a suitable range of not less than 0.15 (instant specification, [0063]).
Therefore, the instant specification does not limit the production method of the claimed separator and porous layer to be the bar coating and clearance method and opposite surface impregnation method as argued by applicant, but prefers the method as now inserted into the independent claim.
While it is noted that the office has taken the position that the materials of the reference are made from similar materials and have properties including coating weight per unit area, thicknesses, and air permeability falling within the scope of the ranges suggested by the instant specification, and pointing to the method of preparing the material product and how that may impact the final product, the instant specification does not require the two specification methods of forming the claimed separator, and teaches that the porous layer comprising heat-resistant resin and material as claimed, in combination with controlling the weight per unit area as discussed by the office in the rejection above and in the rejections in the non-final office action “control” the derivative values as discussed in the cited portions of the specification.
Specifically, applicant argues that the results in the instant specification (which will be addressed further below) demonstrate that the same materials in similar amounts would not result in the claimed derivative values and wherein a value “varies significantly depending on the manufacturing process, particularly the coating method and clearance of the coating bar”, is unpersuasive as the instant specification teaches that the material and in particular the weight per unit area of the coating layer is the significant controller for the derivative values, not solely the manufacturing method, and the examples do not demonstrate criticality of the method and / or bar coater clearance.
Applicant further argues that the use of the opposite surface impregnation method, and argues that neither reference teaches this “key technique”. However, again, applicant’s own specification teaches in the broadest teachings, that controlling the weight per unit area is key in adjusting the derivative values, and is not dependent on the two treatment steps in the manufacturing process, which are optional, preferred steps, and the arguments are not persuasive. The claimed invention is not limited to preferred embodiments and arguments to preferred embodiments, but to the broadest teachings of the specification which clearly teach in [0063] that controlling the weight per unit area (and material) drives the adjustment for the derivative values. A bar coating method and clearance and opposite surface impregnation method are suggested methods of controlling the weight per unit area. While now included into the independent claim, the preparation method and resultant properties have been addressed by the inclusion of Shinohara et al.
To this point, the Suzuki reference teach materials and properties including the weight per unit area, as well as the air permeability and thickness, and Suzuki teach that adjusting these properties to achieve optimal separator strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the materials to inherently possess similar properties, and applicant’s arguments to the bar coating method and that the references do not teach this method are moot in light of the new rejection(s).
Shinohara et al is also newly included in a rejection alone and teaches a material and method similar to that of the instant claims and invention.
Applicant has pointed to the instant inventive and comparative samples in Table 1 ([0118]). Each inventive and comparative sample is prepared by a bar coating method and clearance, and all samples except for comparative examples 3 were subjected to an opposite surface impregnation method.
First, the bar coating method preferably includes a clearance of 80 to 140 microns. The inventive samples 1-3 have clearances set to 91, 113, and 132 microns, respectively, with comparative examples 1-3 with clearances of 48, 68, and 59, respectively. Therefore, the clearances are well outside of the range taught by the specification and those of the inventive samples are widely varied, do not include any points outside of the upper end of the range, resulting in varied (and increasing) weight per unit area. The significant note from the samples is that as the weight per unit area increases, the maximum value of second derivative value appears to increase. With the comparative examples 1 and 2, the same is true, but for comparative example 3 (as noted by applicant) the value is much less despite the similar coating weight unit area. It is noted that the opposite surface impregnation method was not performed, but one sample does not provide a demonstration of unexpected and superior results, especially when the inventive sample all use the most preferred embodiments and are not commensurate in scope with the invention of claim 1, nor the broadest teachings for one to make and use the invention, which does not require the method steps, but teaches that adjusting the weight per unit area achieves the claimed invention. One sample does not persuasively demonstrate any criticality, nor do the samples compare results to adjusting the weight per unit area alone compared to the specific preferred methods being used, and are not persuasive as argued on pages 3 and 5 of the response.
Therefore, applicant’s argument to the criticality of the method and clearance are not persuasive. The rejections over Suzuki et al in view of Shinohara et al and Shinohara et al alone teach similar materials and methods which aim to control the uniformity of the coating and provide the advantage of improved shutdown function are presented, and the clearance of the bar may be selected to fall within the claimed range despite the range not having a showing of criticality and that the specification teaches additional means of controlling the weight per unit area and ultimately the derivative, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the materials of the references to meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishikawa et al (7,892,672) is cited for its teaching of a similar separator and method using a bar coater, but teaches away from single-side application and uses two bars with a 25 micron clearance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
