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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 were rejected in the Office Action from 05/11/2026.
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1.
Claims 1-8 are pending in the application, of claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primarily argue that the claimed method has a two-step coating process whereas Abd, the primary reference, discloses a one-step coating process.
Examiner respectfully disagree. First, it should be noted that the claim transitional phrase “comprising” renders the claimed method open-ended and does not exclude additional process steps or additional components within the recited compositions. Consequently, the claim does not require that the recited components in the precursor solution or the alcohol solution be applied alone or that the recited composition consist exclusively of the identified components or moreover, that the recited method consist exclusively of the recited steps. Abd teaches successive treatments containing the alcohol (i.e., solvent) (paragraph [0037]) which meets the requirements of the second step. The fact that Abd applies additional materials in the successive steps (i.e., the titanium alkoxide), or second application, does not distinguish the claimed method, provided that Abd second application includes the claimed alcohol solution. The additional constituents disclosed by Abd do not negate satisfaction of the claimed limitation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5-7, it is suggested to amend “applying a precursor solution containing a 0.1wt% to 3wt% of titanium alkoxide solution and 0.2wt% to 3wt% of hexamethyldisilazane to the porous polyolefin substrate- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0315384) and further in view of Katayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0003209).
Regarding claim 1, Abd teaches a method for manufacturing a low thermal shrinkage separator (i.e., method for creating a separator) (paragraph [0007), comprising the steps of:
providing a porous polyolefin substrate with a plurality of porous structures on surfaces and interiors thereof (i.e., porous polymeric film of polyolefins) (paragraph [0024], [0028]);
applying a precursor solution containing a 0.01wt% to 2wt% titanium alkoxide to the porous polyolefin substrate (paragraph [0033]-[0034], [0037]); and
applying a 30wt% to 70wt% alcohol solution to form a low thermal shrinkage thin film on the surfaces and sidewalls of the porous structures of the porous polyolefin substrate (paragraph [0029], [0032], [0035]-[0037]).
Abd does not teach the solution having a 0.2wt% to 3wt% of hexamethyldisilazane.
Katayama, also directed to a separator (paragraph [0001]), teaches adding hexamethyldisilazane to inorganic particles (same as Abd as the titanium alkoxide are considered inorganic particles) (paragraph [0050], [0130]). The separator obtained provides a battery with favorable reliability and safety and is excellent in storage characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics (abstract) (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abd method and add hexamethyldisilazane in the solution in order to produce a separator where the battery can exhibit favorable reliability and safety and is excellent in storage characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics. Although Katayama does not explicitly disclose the amount of hexamethyldisilazane, Katayama teaches incorporating hexamethyldisilazane into separator-related compositions to improve reliability, stability and electrochemical performance, thereby evidencing that the presence and amount of hexamethyldisilazane is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of hexamethyldisilazane in the modified composition of Abd through routine experimentation to achieve desired separator properties for instance, coating uniformity, thermal stability, and electrochemical performance. The claimed range of 0.2 wt% to 3 wt% represents a range that would have been discovered through routine optimization, absent showing of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2-3, Abd teaches the titanium alkoxide is titanium isopropoxide (paragraph [0034]) and methanol as the solvent and the alcohol solution is methanol (paragraph [0029]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0315384) and Katayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0003209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0087438).
Regarding claim 4, Abd teaches the method as described above in claim 1 including the alcohol solution.
Abd does not teach the alcohol solution further comprises a tackifier, and the tackifier is used in an amount of 0.05wt% to 5wt%.
Sugiki, directed to adhesive compositions for batteries (abstract), teaches tackifiers can be added for improved adhesiveness (paragraph [0120]) in a content of 1 mass% to 20 mass% (paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abd method and add to the alcohol solution a tackifier in the amount of 1 mass% to 20 mass%, in order to increase adhesiveness between the film and the substrate, as suggested by Sugiki.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0315384) and Katayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0003209) and Sugiki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0087438), as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0218113).
Regarding claim 5, Abd as modified by Sugiki, teaches the method as described above in claim 1 including the alcohol solution with a tackifier.
Abd does not teach the specifics of the tackifier being poly(meth)acrylate, poly-n-vinylacetamide, crosslinkable (meth)acrylic resin, acrylonitrile-acrylate copolymer, acrylonitrile-acrylamide-acrylate copolymer, or combinations thereof.
Jin, directed to a separator (abstract), teaches using acrylonitrile-acrylate copolymer for bonding inorganic particles and improve absorption capacity of the separator for the electrolyte (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tackifier in the solution of Abd to further include acrylonitrile-acrylate copolymer in order to improve the adhesiveness of the titanium alkoxide (which are inorganic particles) in the separator, as suggested by Jin.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0315384) and Katayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0003209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003591).
Regarding claim 6, Abd teaches he porous polyolefin substrate is a single-layered or multi-layered porous polyolefin substrate of polyethylene, polypropylene or copolymers thereof (paragraph [0025]).
Abd does not teach the substrate us obtained by dry-method.
Takita, also directed to a separator (title), teaches a porous polyolefin separator (paragraph [0001]) obtained by a dry0stretching method (paragraph [0164]). Takita teaches dry-stretching is a known and conventional method for forming a separator (paragraph [0164]) with uniform stretching magnification (paragraph [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Abd and obtain the polyolefin separator using a dry-stretching method as such is a known and conventional process for uniform stretching of forming the separator, as suggested by Takita.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0315384) and Katayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0003209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0062136).
Regarding claim 7, Abd teaches the method of manufacturing the separator as described above in claim 1 including applying of the precursor solution and the alcohol solution.
Abd does not teach the application being accomplished by dip coating or spray coating.
Huang, also directed to a separator (abstract), teaches forming a separator using a precursor and a solvent (paragraph [0039], [0049]). Huang teaches conventional methods of applying the precursor and the solvent include spray coating (paragraph [0039]-[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Abd and apply the precursor solution and the alcohol solution using a spray coating method as such is a known and conventional process for coating a precursor in a substrate for the formation of a separator, as suggested by Huang
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Naoi et al. (U.S. Patent 9,296,623). Naoi teaches a solution of titanium alkoxide with isopropyl alcohol to form a film in a substrate (i.e. inner wall of the outer tube) (Example 4) (C10:L25-37).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights