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 and Other Notes
Claims 1–6 are pending.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0120613 A1.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/963,381, filed on 20 July 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 December 2023 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2–5 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an average value of light transmittance." Claim 1, which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "an average value of light transmittance." It is unclear if "an average value of light transmittance" recited in claim 2 is further limiting "an average value of light transmittance" recited in claim 1. A light transmittance can be measured under different conditions, using different methods, or following different treatments; and a crosslinked polyolefin separator can have more than one average value of light transmittance.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a region of 380 nm to 370 nm." Claim 1, which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a region of 380 nm to 370 nm." It is unclear if "a region of 380 nm to 370 nm" recited in claim 2 is further limiting "a region of 380 nm to 370 nm" recited in claim 1. A light transmittance can be measured under different conditions, using different methods, or following different treatments; and a light transmittance can be measured at more than one region.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "four sides of the separator" Claim 1, which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "four sides of the separator." It is unclear if "four sides of the separator" recited in claim 2 is further limiting "four sides of the separator" recited in claim 1. A crosslinked polyolefin separator has more than four sides; and it is unclear if "four sides" recited in claim 2 are the same "four sides" recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the polyolefin backbone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are directly dependent from claim 3 and include all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are also 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation "which shows an average value of light transmittance of 30% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes;" and claim 2 recites the limitation "which shows an average value of light transmittance of 58% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes." Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bae et al. (KR 102037342 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bae discloses a crosslinked polyolefin separator (TABLE 1, [0177]) manufactured by (S1) introducing polyolefin, a diluting agent, alkoxysilane containing a carbon-carbon double bonded group, an initiator and a crosslinking catalyst to an extruder, followed by mixing, and carrying out reactive extrusion (see reaction-extruded, [0149]); (S2) molding and orienting the reactive extruded silane-grafted polyolefin composition in the form of a sheet (see molded, [0143]); (S3) extracting the diluting agent from the oriented sheet to obtain a porous membrane (see extracted, [0144]); (S4) thermally fixing the porous membrane (see heat-set, [0144]); and (S5) crosslinking the thermally fixed porous membrane in the presence of water (see crosslinked, [0144]), wherein at least one of the initiator or the alkoxysilane containing a carbon-carbon double bonded group is introduced and mixed in divided doses at a predetermined time interval, in step (S1) (see elapsed time, [0150]), and the weight ratio (A/B) of the total content (A) of the alkoxysilane containing a carbon-carbon double bonded group to the total content (B) of the initiator is 80-600, or the alkoxysilane containing a carbon-carbon double bonded group introduced previously to the extruder has a higher boiling point, as compared to the alkoxysilane containing a carbon-carbon double bonded group introduced subsequently to the extruder (see first initiator, [0148]; see second initiator, [0149]).
Bae does not explicitly disclose:
which shows an average value of light transmittance of 30% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes.
Bae discloses a method for manufacturing a crosslinked polyolefin separator identical to the method disclosed in the specification (see crosslinked polyolefin separator, [0018]). Therefore, the crosslinked polyolefin separator of Bae inherently possesses an average value of light transmittance of 30% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 2, Bae discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a crosslinked polyolefin separator:
which shows an average value of light transmittance of 58% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes.
Bae discloses a method for manufacturing a crosslinked polyolefin separator identical to the method disclosed in the specification (see crosslinked polyolefin separator, [0018]). Therefore, the crosslinked polyolefin separator of Bae inherently possesses an average value of light transmittance of 58% or more in a region of 380 nm to 700 nm, after four sides of the separator are fixed and allowed to stand at 130° C. for 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 3, Bae discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a crosslinked polyolefin separator:
which has 0.5–10 grafted units based on 1000 carbon atoms in the polyolefin backbone forming the crosslinked polyolefin separator.
Bae discloses a method for manufacturing a crosslinked polyolefin separator identical to the method disclosed in the specification (see crosslinked polyolefin separator, [0018]). Therefore, the crosslinked polyolefin separator of Bae inherently possesses 0.5-10 grafted units based on 1000 carbon atoms in the polyolefin backbone forming the crosslinked polyolefin separator.
Regarding claim 4, Bae discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a crosslinked polyolefin separator:
which has 1.0–8.0 grafted units based on 1000 carbon atoms in the polyolefin backbone forming the crosslinked polyolefin separator.
Bae discloses a method for manufacturing a crosslinked polyolefin separator identical to the method disclosed in the specification (see crosslinked polyolefin separator, [0018]). Therefore, the crosslinked polyolefin separator of Bae inherently possesses 0.5-10 grafted units based on 1000 carbon atoms in the polyolefin backbone forming the crosslinked polyolefin separator.
Regarding claim 5, Bae discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a crosslinked polyolefin separator:
wherein the grafted units are silane-grafted units (see vinylsilane, [0148]).
Regarding claim 6, Bae discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a crosslinked polyolefin separator:
which has a thickness of 4.0-12.0 μm (TABLE 1, [0168]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725