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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/23, 8/9/24, 1/15/25 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
No drawings were submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation, “particle type polymer” is unclear. It is unclear if “type” pertains to an intrinsic, extrinsic or another characteristic of a particle. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims Analysis
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation, “particle type polymer” will be interpreted as “particle in polymer”. Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 1-3, 6, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2007/0122716).
Regarding claim 1, the Seo et al. reference discloses a separator for a secondary battery, the separator comprising a separator body having a porous structure (P83; polyethylene porous film (P82) and a particle in polymer embedded in the separator body, wherein the particle in polymer is comprises material (ceramic; alumina in binder; P82) having a higher heat resistance higher than a heat resistance of the separator body. The Seo et al. reference does not specify if the particle in polymer comprise a material having heat resistance higher than the heat resistance of the separator, however, alumina inherently comprises a higher than a heat resistance than polyethylene.
Regarding claim 2, the Seo et al. reference discloses wherein the separator body comprises a porous membrane or non-woven fabric (P59).
Regarding claim 3, the Seo et al. reference discloses wherein at least a part of the particle in polymer is present in pores of the separator body (Claim 18, step c; P48, “a part of the pore in the substrate,” “coating it directly on the surface of a porous substrate having pores so that the pores on the porous substrate and the organic/inorganic composite layer can be anchored to each other,”).
Regarding claim 6, the Seo et al. reference discloses wherein an increase in permeability of the separator body having the particle in polymer embedded in the separator body is less than 30% based on a permeability of the separator body alone (Fig. 10 in which content of porous particle at 0 is at 375 and the contact at 10 is 350, that is 25 less which would incorporate of permeability of less than 30%).
Regarding claim 8, the Seo et al. reference discloses the separator body is comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of polyolefin, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyester, polyacetal, polyamide, polycarbonate, polyimide, polyether ether ketone, polyethersulfone, polyphenylene oxide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyacrylonitrile, cellulose, and polyethylene naphthalene, and a mixture thereof (P56).
Regarding claim 11, the Seo et al. reference discloses a secondary battery comprising the separator according to claim 1 (P75).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Totsuka (US 20050208383).
Regarding claim 1, the Totsuka reference discloses a separator for a secondary battery comprising a particle (2) in polymer embedded in a porous separator body (1), 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).
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 particle type polymer is present in pores of the separator body (Fig. 1, 4-8).
Regarding claim 7, the Totsuka reference disclose 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 9, the Totsuka reference discloses the particle in polymer comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene wherein the particle in polymer has a higher melting point than a material for the separator body (Example 1).
Regarding claim 10, the Totsuka reference discloses that a starting separator body comprising no particle in polymer is 6microns (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)
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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2007/0122716).
Regarding claim 4, the Seo et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Seo et al. reference further discloses a weight of the particle in polymer is 50 to 97 wt % in the total amount of composite porous separator. The Seo et al. reference adds, When the content of the inorganic porous particles is less than 50 wt %, the binder polymer is present in such a large amount that the interstitial volume formed among the inorganic porous particles is decreased and further the pore size and porosity are decreased, resulting in degradation in the quality of a battery. On the other hand, when the content of the inorganic porous particles is greater than 97 wt %, the polymer content is too low to provide sufficient adhesion among the inorganic particles, resulting in degradation in mechanical properties of an end product of the organic/inorganic composite porous separator (P47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date 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 Seo et al. reference would have obviously disclose a weight of the particles in polymer to be 10-80% by weight of the totally weight of the separator body.
Regarding claim 7, the Seo et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Seo et al. reference further discloses inorganic porous particles are in size from 0.001 μm to 10 μm. When the size is less than 0.001 μm, inorganic porous particles have poor dispersibility so that structure and physical properties of the organic/inorganic composite porous separator cannot be controlled with ease. When the size is greater than 10 μm, the resultant organic/inorganic composite porous separator has an increased thickness under the same solid content, resulting in degradation in mechanical properties. Furthermore, such excessively large pores may increase a possibility of an internal short circuit being generated during repeated charge/discharge cycles. The Seo et al. reference also discloses the pore size (diameter) of the porous substrate preferably ranges from 0.01 μm to 50 μm. When the pore size and porosity are less than 0.01 μm and 5%, respectively, the porous substrate may function as resistance layer. However, when the pore size and porosity are greater than 50 μm and 95%, respectively, it is difficult to maintain mechanical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date 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 Seo et al. reference would have obviously disclose a weight of the particles in polymer to be 10-80% by weight of the totally weight of the separator body. As a result, it would have been obvious for Seo et al. reference to disclose the size of each pore of the separator body in a range of 110%-1000% of a particle size of the particle in polymer.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totsuka (US 20050208383).
Regarding claim 5, the Totsuka reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Totsuka reference does not specify 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.
Conclusion
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