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 .
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (CN10887845 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al (2014/0178741).
Hasegawa et al disclose a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode (instant claims 6 and 7), wherein the separator comprises a porous film substrate (A layer) comprising a polyolefin as a main component (50% by volume or greater, preferably 90%, most preferably 95% volume of the entire layer; [0047]), a heat-resistant layer B on the porous film, ([0033], having the polyolefin base and heat-resistant polymer-containing porous layer having a filler as required by the instant claim 1).
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 teaches that the porous substrate comprises the polyolefin (preferably high molecular weight polyethylene [0049]) in a proportion of preferably 95% by volume ([0047]), an air permeability of 30 to 500 s/ 100 cc ([0050]), a porosity of 20 to 80% by volume, a weight per unit area of 5 to 12 g/m2, and a thickness of 10 to 30 microns ([0055]), and the porous layer comprising the heat-resistant polymer comprises the polymer in a proportion of 90% by volume or more ([0061], examples between 6.4 and 8.2 Table 3), a weight per unit area of 7.8 to 11.7 g/ m2 (Table 3), and a thickness of 2 to 15 microns ([0067]).
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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the separator of Hasegawa 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, insulating properties, and physical strength improving the performance of the separator.
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Suzuki et al.
Both of Hasegawa et al and Suzuki et al have been discussed above.
Hasegawa et al disclose broadly that the heat-resistant polymer includes those which comprise Tgs of 180 o C or greater which broadly includes nitrogen-containing polymers such as imides and amides ([0070]).
The reference teaches that a nitrogen-containing resin is broadly suggested as useful, but fails to specifically teach that the heat-resistant resin is a nitrogen-containing aromatic resin or an aramid.
Suzuki et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that having a porous layer comprising an aromatic nitrogen-containing heat-resistant resin, as one layer of a multi-layered battery separator improves the ion-permeability and heat-resistance of the battery multi-layered separator. The nitrogen-containing resin is preferably an aramid (instant claims 4 and 5),
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 Hasegawa et al, choosing to include a nitrogen-containing resin as the heat-resistant resin, taught by Suzuki et al to improve the ion permeability and heat-resistance of the separator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has 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 argues that the instant specification teaches further that the it is preferable.
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 (response, paragraph spanning page 2 to page 3). Furthermore, of pages 4 and 5 of the response, applicant argues that the references of record, Suzuki and Hasegawa, fail to teach a bar coating method or an opposite surface impregnation method, which are not claimed features and is noted would be a product-by-process limitation, if added, given the claims are drawn to a product.
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 are, 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, to the argument on page 4, paragraph 1 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.
Applicant makes a similar argument in paragraph 2 on page 4 of the response to 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. Adjusting the coating such that the resultant coating falls within the range as suggested and preferred by the instant specification is not limited to using the methods as applicant argues, and the arguments are not persuasive.
To this point, the Suzuki and Hasegawa references 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 (paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3 of the response and page 4), and the rejections of record are maintained in light of these arguments.
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 instant specification teaches that the bar coating method preferably includes a clearance of 80 to 140 microns ([0067]), therefore the clearance and not just the bar coating method are taught. 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, 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 s3 (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, the arguments presented by applicant in the response filed 3/30/2026 are not persuasive and the rejections of record are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumine et al (commonly owned, 2023/0318136, 2023/0282942, CN117175142) and Morimura et al (WO 2021/172195) are cited for teaching of a battery separator and wherein opposite surface impregnation methods are known.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights