DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the specification, filed on November 1, 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I (claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26) in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 13 – 21, 24 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/289,632 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0250381 A1 to Han et al.) in view of Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a crosslinked polyolefin porous support comprising polymer chains directly connected with one another (at least claim 1).
The above identified Application fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the double bonds in the polyolefin.
However, Noumi et al. teaches a similar porous, polyolefin crosslinked separator wherein the crosslinking can occur due a polyolefin second resin material having double bonds (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025), wherein the amount of double bonds impacts the amount of crosslinking, which is taught as being a critical parameter to achieve the desired properties (at least Paragraphs 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Noumi et al. teach encompassing crosslinking percentages as optimizable parameters (see citations above).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26, the above identified Application explicitly recites these claimed limitations (see dependent claims listed above).
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 13 of copending Application No. 18/289,387 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0372221 A1 to Han et al.) in view of Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a crosslinked polyolefin porous support comprising polymer chains directly connected with one another (at least claim 1).
The above identified Application fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the double bonds in the polyolefin.
However, Noumi et al. teaches a similar porous, polyolefin crosslinked separator wherein the crosslinking can occur due a polyolefin second resin material having double bonds (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025), wherein the amount of double bonds impacts the amount of crosslinking, which is taught as being a critical parameter to achieve the desired properties (at least Paragraphs 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Noumi et al. teach encompassing crosslinking percentages as optimizable parameters (see citations above).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 12 and 26, the above identified Application explicitly recites these claimed limitations (see dependent claims listed above).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 9, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such an inorganic ‘coating’ and ‘adhesive’ layers are well established in the art for improving flame/heat resistance and other properties of the separator. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see cited art below to Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0203690 A1), Paragraphs 0013 – 0017, 0052 – 0055, and 0073 - 0076.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 19 of copending Application No. 18/266,045 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0106077 A1 to Han et al.) in view of Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a crosslinked polyolefin porous support comprising polymer chains directly connected with one another (at least claim 1).
The above identified Application fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the double bonds in the polyolefin.
However, Noumi et al. teaches a similar porous, polyolefin crosslinked separator wherein the crosslinking can occur due a polyolefin second resin material having double bonds (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025), wherein the amount of double bonds impacts the amount of crosslinking, which is taught as being a critical parameter to achieve the desired properties (at least Paragraphs 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Noumi et al. teach encompassing crosslinking percentages as optimizable parameters (see citations above). See also claims 5 – 7 for crosslink percentages in the different regions of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 12 and 26, the above identified Application explicitly recites these claimed limitations (see dependent claims listed above).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 9, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such an inorganic ‘coating’ and ‘adhesive’ layers are well established in the art for improving flame/heat resistance and other properties of the separator. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see cited art below to Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0203690 A1), Paragraphs 0013 – 0017, 0052 – 0055, and 0073 - 0076.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8 and 14 of copending Application No. 17/772,644 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0407179 A1 to Han et al.) in view of Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a crosslinked polyolefin porous support comprising polymer chains directly connected with one another (at least claim 1).
The above identified Application fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the double bonds in the polyolefin.
However, Noumi et al. teaches a similar porous, polyolefin crosslinked separator wherein the crosslinking can occur due a polyolefin second resin material having double bonds (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025), wherein the amount of double bonds impacts the amount of crosslinking, which is taught as being a critical parameter to achieve the desired properties (at least Paragraphs 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 26, the above identified Application explicitly recites these claimed limitations (see dependent claims listed above).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 9, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such an inorganic ‘coating’ and ‘adhesive’ layers are well established in the art for improving flame/heat resistance and other properties of the separator. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see cited art below to Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0203690 A1), Paragraphs 0013 – 0017, 0052 – 0055, and 0073 - 0076.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such properties are well established in the art for improving separator performance. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see cited art below to Bae et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,545,718 B2), at least Table 1.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 11 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/289,182 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0222710 A1 to Han et al.) in view of Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a crosslinked polyolefin porous support comprising polymer chains directly connected with one another (at least claim 1).
The above identified Application fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the double bonds in the polyolefin.
However, Noumi et al. teaches a similar porous, polyolefin crosslinked separator wherein the crosslinking can occur due a polyolefin second resin material having double bonds (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025), wherein the amount of double bonds impacts the amount of crosslinking, which is taught as being a critical parameter to achieve the desired properties (at least Paragraphs 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 2 – 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 26, the above identified Application explicitly recites these claimed limitations (see dependent claims listed above and claim 1 for shutdown temperature).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 3, 11, 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0227223 A1) as evidenced by Bae et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,545,718 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Noumi et al. disclose a crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support (Title; Abstract).
Noumi et al. fails to explicitly disclose where the initially recited polyolefin crosslinks with itself, but Noumi et al. does disclose using secondary polymers with double bonds to form crosslinking with the polyolefin (Paragraphs 0022 – 0025). It is noted that Noumi et al. explicitly teaches at least one polyolefin with double bonds in this list (polynorbornene), which would result in embodiments meeting the limitation “polymer chains interconnected directly with one another” as the double-bond containing polyolefins are crosslinked with other polyolefins, without the use of non-polyolefin crosslinking agents, etc. (and, likely, at least some of the crosslinking between polyolefins would also be between two polynorbornene elements, which then even more explicitly reads on the claimed limitations).
Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, polynorbornene is equivalent to the other double-bonding containing (non-polyolefin) polymers listed by Noumi et al. and is a functional equivalent in the field of suitable material to use in forming the porous polyolefin support. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
In addition, fails to disclose a number of double bonds are present in the polyolefin chains of 0.01-0.6 per 1000 carbon atoms, as determined by H-NMR.
However, Noumi et al. teaches that the number of double bonds impacts the degree of cross-linking and the degree of cross-linking needs to be controlled to tailor the properties of the separator, including degrees of cross-linking encompassing the range in claim 2 (see at least Paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0013, 0019 – 0022, 0039 – 0041, and 0044 – 0047).
Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of double bonds per 1000 carbon atoms through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Noumi et al. regarding the desire to use a double-bond containing polyolefin to affect the crosslinking between the polyolefin polymer material and to optimize the amount of crosslinking obtained; i.e. by controlling the amount of double bonds present per 1000 carbon atoms. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of utilize a polynorbornene double-bond containing polyolefin polymer to meet the claimed limitations by optimizing the number of double bonds in the polyolefin as the number of double bonds impacts the degree of crosslinking, which is a known, critical parameter as taught by Noumi et al. above.
Regarding claims 3 and 26, Noumi et al. disclose the claimed separator and battery limitations (Figure 1 and at least Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the meltdown temperature through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that high meltdown temperatures exceeding the claimed range are both desired and conventional, as set forth by the evidentiary art to Bae et al. (see at least Table 1). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Noumi et al. disclose shutdown temperatures meeting the claimed limitations (see at least Table 1).
Claims 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. as applied above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0203690) [noting 371 date of January 7, 2020].
Noumi et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 9, Noumi et al. fails to disclose additional inorganic coating and adhesive layers on the porous polyolefin separator meeting the limitations of claims 4, 7 and 9.
However, Kwon et al. teach a similar porous polyolefin separator (separator support: Title; Abstract; Paragraphs 0013 – 0017) comprising a separator base layer meeting the limitations of the inorganic composite porous layer (ibid and Paragraphs 0073 – 0076), followed by an adhesive layer meeting the limitations of the claimed adhesive layer (ibid and Paragraphs 0052 – 0055). Such a structure shows improved adhesion and excellent pore structure (ibid).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Noumi et al. to utilize additional layers as taught by Kwon et al., as such layers are well established in the art and provide for improved adhesion and excellent pore structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while no claim has been indicated as allowable, the Examiner acknowledges that the prior art does not address the exact percentage of double bonds in a porous crosslinked polyolefin separator wherein the polyolefin comprises polymer chains interconnected directly with one another instead of via a silicon crosslinking agent. Amendment to incorporate claim 3 into claim 1 and a showing of unexpected results reasonably commensurate in scope to the claimed 0.01 – 0.6 per 1000 carbon atoms limitation would appear to overcome the art of record under the doctrine of unexpected results.
However, Applicant(s) are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner’s position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Finally, any claim sought to be allowable by unexpected results must be reasonably commensurate in scope to the showing; this includes the percentage of double bonds, but likely also includes specific types of polyolefins unless a reasonable argument could be made why all molecular weights, backbone structures, etc. would convey the same behavior (e.g. see discussion on pages 16 – 17 of the as-filed disclosure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights