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 .
The Applicant’s amendments were received on 4/28/26. Claims 1-10 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-11 have been withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2007/0122716), on claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Totsuka et al. on claims 1-3, 7-11 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., on claims 4 and 7 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totsuka et al., on claim 5 is withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totsuka (US 20050208383) in view of Kyun et al. (KR10-20140070199)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the Totsuka reference discloses a separator for a secondary battery comprising a particle (2) in polymer embedded in a porous separator body (P38, component1), wherein the particle in polymer comprises a material having a heat resistance higher than a heat resistance of the separator body (Example 1, Fig. 1, wherein the fabric comprises a melting point of 260° C vs. the grain particle with melting point of 320°C). The Totsuka reference discloses a grain particle with melting point of over 180°C and gave specific examples that the grain particle can have a higher melting temperature than the separator body. The Totsuka reference is silent in disclosing the grain particle comprises polymer particles comprise polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, polyamide, polysulfone, polyether ether ketone, polyphenylene sulfide, polyetherimide, and polyamide-imide, or mixtures thereof. However, the Kyun et al. discloses high melting polymers such polyimide (PI) having a glass transition temperature of about 400 ° C. or higher, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) having a glass transition temperature of about 143 ° C., melting point of about 343 ° C., polyetherimide (PAI) at about 274 ° C with higher melting temperature than 260° C or that of the separator body. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 2, the Totsuka reference discloses the separator body comprises a non-woven fabric (Example 1).
Regarding claim 3, the Totsuka reference discloses at least a part of the plurality of polymer particle is present on the surface of the separator body (Fig. 1, 4-8; claim 23).
Regarding claim 4, the Totsuka reference discloses the weight of the polymer grains is 10%by weight to 80% by weight of a total weight of the separator body (Examples).
Regarding claim 5, the Totsuka reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Totsuka reference does not specify if the particle in polymer is 10% by volume to 80% by volume of a total pore volume of the separator body. However, the Totsuka reference discloses pores in the porous structure as well as primary grain size of filler grains plays a very important role in the improvement of ion conductance and overcharge resistance. In the present invention, the primary average grain size of filler grains should desirably be 0.1 to 95% of the diameter of through pores or pores, whichever is smaller. If this value is lower than 0.1%, filler grains will melt when the internal temperature of the battery rises above a normal use range, in which case blocking the pores in the porous structure and through pores in the microporous resin film will become difficult and battery safety may be compromised as a result. If the above value is higher than 95%, on the other hand, the clearances between separator pores and through pores may be reduced. This can affect ion conductance and various other characteristics that determine battery performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As a result, the disclosure of Totsuka reference discloses that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the particle in polymer being 10% by volume to 80% by volume of a total pore volume of the separator body.
Regarding claim 6, the Totsuka reference discloses blocked permeability of the micropores by the polymer grains in the case of “shutdown” function. Therefore, there should not be an increase in the permeability of the separator body having the plurality of polymer particles embedded in the separator body is less than 30% based on the permeability of the separator body alone. The function of the polymer grain is to be embedded inside the pores, the permeability of the porous separator substrate will be less and not more. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of the patents together like pieces of a puzzle. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. The question to be answered is whether the claimed invention is a product of innovation or merely the result of common sense, ordinary creativity, and ordinary skill. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 7, the Totsuka reference discloses the diameter of pores of the separator is 5 microns and the grain size to be 3 microns (Example 17). That is, the Totsuka reference discloses the size of each port of the separator to be 110% to 1000% of a particle size of the particle in polymer.
Regarding claim 8, the Totsuka reference discloses the separator body comprises at least a polyethylene terephthalate (Example 1) .
Regarding claim 10, the Totsuka reference discloses that a starting separator body comprising no particle in polymer is 6 microns (example 12) and after treatment, both sides of the microporous film were rubbed while the surface was still wet after coating to obtain an electronic separator with thickness of 6 microns (Fig 5, Example 14).
Regarding claim 11, the Totsuka reference discloses a separator battery comprising the separator comprising claim 1 (Claim 10)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, the Applicant argues,”
PNG
media_image1.png
526
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e the advantageous effects) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
