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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 mainly recites limitations which are already stated in claim 10. Claim 11 repeats the claim language of claim 10, but restates “a layer” as “one layer” and further listing layers as “layer 1” or “layer 2”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2015/0372269) in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/226361, see English language equivalent US 2021/0328260).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a non-woven fabric base material for a lithium ion secondary battery separator composited of mainly polyethylene terephthalate fiber (abstract). The separator can be used as a solid electrolyte ([0025]). The PET fibers can have a diameter of 14.0 µm or less ([0043]). The basis weight of the non-woven fabric is preferably 6-20 g/m2 ([0041]). The thickness of the non-woven fabric can be 10-30 µm ([0042]). The fibers can be made by a dry-laid method such as a carding, air-laid, a spunbounding, or a meltblowing method; or a wet-laid method such as a paper-making or electrospinning method ([0091]).
However, Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic recovery rate of the support is 30 to 99%.
It is noted that the original specification at published paragraph [0048] states that “if the fabric temperature before setting is set within a range of 40 to 120C, it will be possible to obtain an elastic recovery rate and compressibility ratio within the range”. Therefore, it is considered that the fabric temperature before pressing affects and leads to the elastic recovery rate within the claimed range.
Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a solid electrolyte membrane for a solid-state battery (abstract). The solid electrolyte membrane includes a solid electrolyte material and at least one porous polymer sheet, wherein the porous polymer sheet has a porosity of 30-90 vol% ([0046]). The ionic conductivity is preferably 10-4 S/cm or more ([0059]). The electrolyte film is warmed to between room temperature and 180C (about 25-180C) before it is introduced into the press-fitting process, in order to increase the softness of the material and accelerate introduction of the electrolyte film into the pores of the polymer sheet ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of warming the electrolyte (including a temperature of 40-120) as taught by Lee with the manufacturing method of Sato for the purpose of increasing the softness of the material and accelerate introduction of electrolyte film into the pores of the polymer sheet.
Therefore, because the compositions are the same and are made by substantially the same method, the combination renders obvious the claimed property (elastic recovery rate of the support is 30-99%).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sato teaches that the non-woven fiber base material can include pores [and is therefore porous], Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the support has a porosity of 30 to 95%.
Lee teaches that the porosity of polymer sheet can be between 30-90 vol% ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the porosity range (including the range of 30-90 vol%) of the porous polymer sheet of the solid electrolyte of Lee with the polymer fabric of Sato for the purpose of providing pores for the solid electrolyte to be packed within in order to form the solid electrolyte (Lee at [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the compressibility ratio of the support is 0.1 to 40%. I
t is noted that the original specification at published paragraph [0048] states that “if the fabric temperature before setting is set within a range of 40 to 120C, it will be possible to obtain an elastic recovery rate and compressibility ratio within the range”. Therefore, it is considered that the fabric temperature before pressing affects and leads to the compressibility ratio within the claimed range.
Therefore, because Lee teaches warming the polymer before it is introduced into the press-fitting process ([0091]), the compositions are the same and are made by substantially the same method, the combination renders obvious the claimed property (compressibility ratio of 0.1 to 40%).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sato teaches that the non-woven fabric includes PET (polyethylene terephthalate; a polyester) (abstract, [0043]), which is a synthetic fiber of polyester.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sato teaches that the thickness of the non-woven fabric base material is between 10-30 µm ([0042]), Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the support under a load of 100 g/m2 is 5 to 200 µm. However, because Sato teaches that the thickness is between 10-30 µm, Sato renders obvious the limitation under a load. In addition, Sato teaches that if the thickness is less than 10 µm, then a sufficient strength cannot be obtained ([0042]). Therefore, Sato reasonably suggests a thickness of at least 10 µm, even under a load.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sato teaches the basis weight of the non-woven fabric is preferably 6-20 g/m2 ([0041]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sato discloses examples where the average fiber diameter is 1.5 to 2.8 µm ([0055]), and therefore discloses ultrafine fibers with fibers diameters of 0.1 to 5.0 µm.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sato teaches that the non-woven fabric is pressed by calendaring or the like while heating ([0093]), and is therefore considered to be thermally bonded over the entire surface.
Regarding claim 14, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sato discloses the non-woven fabric base material is used in the forming of a solid electrolyte ([0025]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sato discloses the non-woven fabric base material is used in the forming of a solid electrolyte ([0025]), modified Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical conductivity of the solid electrolyte is 1.0x10-5 to 5.0x10-1 s/m.
However, Lee discloses that the solid electrolyte can have an ionic conductivity preferably of 10-4 S/cm [10-2 S/m] or more ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ionic conductivity of a solid electrolyte of 10-4 S/cm [10-2 S/m] or more as taught by Lee in the solid electrolyte of Sato for the purpose of having a high ionic conductivity for the solid electrolyte.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2015/0372269) in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/226361, see English language equivalent US 2021/0328260), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 6,291,105).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the nonwoven fabric includes fibers with fiber lengths of 51 mm or greater.
Yamamoto discloses a battery separator and a method for manufacturing the same (abstract). The non-woven fabric can be made by mixing fibers with different fiber lengths (C5/L65-C6/L1). The fiber lengths can be at least 30 mm long (C6/L1-L3). Yamamoto further provides an example where a fiber in the non-woven fabric is 51 mm long (C10/L53-56). When fibers of different lengths are used, including longer fibers will improve the strength of the non-woven fabric (C6/L6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fibers greater than 30 mm (including fibers of 51 mm long) as taught by Yamamoto with the non-woven fabric of Sato for the purpose of improving the strength of the non-woven fabric.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2015/0372269) in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/226361, see English language equivalent US 2021/0328260), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusakabe et al. (JP 2013-080828, see Applicant supplied machine translation).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the nonwoven fabric includes a [one] layer containing ultrafine fibers with fiber diameters of 0.1 to 5.0 µm (layer I) and a [one] layer containing fibers with fiber diameters of greater than 5.0 µm and 30 µm or smaller (layer II).
Kusakabe discloses a separator including a solid electrolyte and a nonwoven fabric holding the solid electrolyte (abstract). Kusakabe teaches the fabric includes a first layer (layer I) constituted of ultrafine fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.1-4 µm, and a second layer (layer II) constituted of thermoplastic resin fibers having a fiber diameter of 6-30 µm (abstract). Kusakabe teaches that the separator can be produced at low cost because of a stable production process, with good yield, and has high performance because of high withstand voltage, high capacity and low ESR ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the arrangement of the fabric having a first layer having ultrafine fibers [diameters of 0.1-4 µm] and a second layer having fibers [diameters of 6-30 µm] of Kusakabe with the non-woven fabric of Sato for the purpose of having a separator that can be produced at low cost, with stable production process, with good yield, and has high performance because of high withstand voltage, high capacity and low ESR.
Regarding claims 13, modified Sato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the nonwoven fabric includes a [one] layer containing ultrafine fibers with fiber diameters of 0.1 to 5.0 µm (layer I) and a [one] layer containing fibers with fiber diameters of greater than 5.0 µm and 30 µm or smaller (layer II).
Kusakabe discloses a separator including a solid electrolyte and a nonwoven fabric holding the solid electrolyte (abstract). Kusakabe teaches the fabric includes a first layer (layer I) constituted of ultrafine fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.1-4 µm, and a second layer (layer II) constituted of thermoplastic resin fibers having a fiber diameter of 6-30 µm (abstract). Kusakabe teaches that the separator can be produced at low cost because of a stable production process, with good yield, and has high performance because of high withstand voltage, high capacity and low ESR ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the arrangement of the fabric having a first layer having ultrafine fibers [diameters of 0.1-4 µm] and a second layer having fibers [diameters of 6-30 µm] of Kusakabe with the non-woven fabric of Sato for the purpose of having a separator that can be produced at low cost, with stable production process, with good yield, and has high performance because of high withstand voltage, high capacity and low ESR.
With regards to the limitations of “the elastic recovery rate of the support is 45 to 99%, and the compressibility ratio of the support is 0.1 to 9.7%”, as the original specification at published paragraph [0048] states that “if the fabric temperature before setting is set within a range of 40 to 120C, it will be possible to obtain an elastic recovery rate and compressibility ratio within the range”, because Lee teaches warming the polymer before it is introduced into the press-fitting process ([0091]), the compositions are the same and are made by substantially the same method, the combination renders obvious the claimed properties (elastic recover rate is 45 to 99%, and compressibility ratio of 0.1 to 9.7%).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights