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
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)(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.
1. Claim(s) 31-33,37-39,49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US20160301052).
As to claim 31, Adams et al. discloses a multilayer porous membrane, comprising: a dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation (paragraph 0016); and an additional layer that has not been treated with electron-beam irradiation (paragraph 0058, PP layer).
As to claim 32, Adams et al. discloses wherein a dosage of the electron-beam radiation is from from 20 kGy to 250 kGy, 50 kGy to 250 kGy, from 60 kGy to 200 kGy, from 70 kGy to 150 kGy, or from 80 kGy to 140 kGy, or;wherein the additional layer is laminated to the dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation (paragraph 0060).
As to claim 33, Adams et al. discloses wherein a blocking layer is laminated with a dry-process polyethylene layer and the additional layer to form a structure with the blocking layer between the dry-process polyethylene layer and the additional layer, and wherein the dry-process polyethylene layer is treated with electron beam irradiation to form the dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation (paragraph 0058 PP/PE/PP, the first PP is the blocking layer).
As to claim 38, Adams et al. discloses comprising irradiating a dry-process polyethylene layer with electron-beam irradiation (paragraph 0016-0017).
As to claim 39, Adams et al. discloses wherein a dose of the electron-beam irradiation is from 20kGy to 250kGy, from 50 kGy to 250 kGy, from 60 kGy to 200 kGy, from 70 kGy to 150 kGy, or from 80 kGy to 140 kGy (paragraph 0060).
As to claim 49, Adams et al. discloses a battery separator comprising the membrane of claim 31 (paragraph 0002).
As to claim 50, Adams et al. discloses having an overall thickness of 5 to 50 microns (paragraph 0048).
As to claim 51, Adams et al. discloses having an overall thickness of 5 to 15 microns (paragraph 0048).
As to claim 52, Adams et al. discloses a battery, LFP battery, NMC battery, or capacitor comprising the separator of claim 49 (paragraph 0002).
2. Claim(s) 45-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Call et al. (US10003058).
As to claim 45, Call et al. discloses a dry-process porous membrane comprising at least two co-extruded polyethylene layers (col. 2 lines 1-15).
As to claim 46, Call et al. discloses comprising three or more co-extruded polyethylene layers (col. 2 lines 1-15).
As to claim 47, Call et al. discloses further comprising a coating on at least one surface of the membrane, wherein the coating is at least one selected from the group consisting of a ceramic coating, a polymer coating, a sticky coating, a shutdown coating, a cross-linkable coating, and combinations thereof or; comprising a ceramic coating (col. 3 lines 42-43).
As to claim 48, Call et al. discloses a ceramic coated microporous PE membrane, comprising: at least one dry-stretch process polyethylene layer; and a ceramic coating on at least one side of the polyethylene layer (table 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
3. Claim(s) 34-37,42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. in view of Niemoller et al. (EP2830125).
Adams et al. discloses the multilayer porous membrane described above. Adams et al. fail to disclose wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer or; wherein the dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron- beam irradiation and the additional layer are co-extruded layers, wherein a blocking layer is co- extruded between a dry-process polyethylene layer and the additional layer, and the dry-process polyethylene layer is treated with electron beam irradiation to form the dry- process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation, wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer and further comprising a coating on at least one surface of the membrane, wherein the coating is at least one selected from the group consisting of a ceramic coating, a polymer coating, a sticky coating, a shutdown coating, a cross-linkable coating, and combinations thereof.
Niemoller et al. teaches wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer or; wherein the dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron- beam irradiation and the additional layer are co-extruded layers (paragraph 0109), wherein a blocking layer is co- extruded between a dry-process polyethylene layer and the additional layer, and the dry-process polyethylene layer is treated with electron beam irradiation to form the dry- process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation (0005), wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer (0109), and further comprising a coating on at least one surface of the membrane, wherein the coating is at least one selected from the group consisting of a ceramic coating, a polymer coating, a sticky coating, a shutdown coating, a cross-linkable coating, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0149-0150) for the purpose of providing separators with rapid liquid absorption, high porosity, good mechanical strength and very low shrinkage under thermal stress (paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Adams et al. with wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer or; wherein the dry-process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron- beam irradiation and the additional layer are co-extruded layers (paragraph 0109), wherein a blocking layer is co- extruded between a dry-process polyethylene layer and the additional layer, and the dry-process polyethylene layer is treated with electron beam irradiation to form the dry- process polyethylene layer that has been treated with electron-beam radiation (0005), wherein the additional layer is a dry-process polyethylene layer (0109), and further comprising a coating on at least one surface of the membrane, wherein the coating is at least one selected from the group consisting of a ceramic coating, a polymer coating, a sticky coating, a shutdown coating, a cross-linkable coating, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0149-0150) for the purpose of providing separators with rapid liquid absorption, high porosity, good mechanical strength and very low shrinkage under thermal stress (paragraph 0001).
4. Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. in view of Kuno et al. (JPH0813337).
Adams et al. discloses the multilayer porous membrane described above. Adams et al. fail to disclose a textile, garment, PPE, filter, medical product, house product, fragrance device, or disposable lighter comprising the membrane of claim 31. Kuno et al. teaches a textile, garment, PPE, filter, medical product, house product, fragrance device, or disposable lighter comprising the membrane of claim 31 for the purpose of providing a nonwoven fabric which is particularly excellent in liquid retention, by subjecting the nonwoven fabric to a graft treatment and can be used for cell diaphragms, various separation membranes, filters, etc (paragraph 0014,0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to Adams et al. with a textile, garment, PPE, filter, medical product, house product, fragrance device, or disposable lighter comprising the membrane of claim 31 for the purpose of providing a nonwoven fabric which is particularly excellent in liquid retention, by subjecting the nonwoven fabric to a graft treatment and can be used for cell diaphragms, various separation membranes, filters, etc (paragraph 0014,0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is allowed.
Claims 41,43-44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fail to teach or suggest when a dose of the electron-beam irradiation that is less than 70 kGy or less and 50 kGy is applied, wherein a dose of the electron-beam irradiation that is less than 70 kGy has been applied to the dry-process polyethylene layer. Applicant teaches this for the purpose of providing a dose that causes reduced chain scission reactions to occur or causes no chain scission reactions to occur in order to prevent weakening of the membrane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE J RHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6:30).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/JANE J RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724