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 - 5 are pending in the current application and under consideration on the merits. Claims 6 - 9 were subject to a restriction requirement and have since been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2024 and 09/24/20206 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8 line 14, polyvinylidene fluoride is misspelled as “olyvinylidene fluoride”.
Page 8 line 18, “formula 1 above” is referenced however, there is no formula 1 above. There is formula 1 below.
Page 29 line 6, “through” is used instead of “though”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 1 – 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “DPVDF”, which has multiple definitions set forth in the specification.
Page 1 line 19 defines “polyvinylidene fluoride” as DPVDF.
Page 10 lines 10 – 11 define “a polymer compound synthesized by dehydrochlorination of PVDF” as DPVDF.
Page 8 lines 13 – 14 define “double-bond contained olyvinylidene [sic] fluoride” as DPVDF.
Page 8 lines 19 – 24 define “a fluorine-based polymer compound including a double bond synthesized by dehydrochlorinating poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene [hereinafter referred to as 'P(VDF-CTFE)'] having a structure shown in Formula 1 below, and a structural formula thereof is represented by Formula 2 below” as DPVDF
Notably, the term “dPVDF” is seldomly used in the polymer art when referring to PVDF that has undergone dehydrofluorination. Claim 1 claims a separator which is coated in crossed-linked DPVDF. Based on the definitions set forth in the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what the term DPVDF means, as it is given contradictory definitions throughout the specification. If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 966 F.3d 1374, 1378-81, 2020 USPQ2d 10865 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2173.02(II) for further discussion. For purposes of examination, any definition set forth in the speciation is said to meet the claimed limitation.
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected as including without solving the indefinite issue noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amin-Sanayei et al. (US 2015/0030906), herein referred to as “Amin-Sanayei”.
Regarding claim 1, Amin-Sanayei discloses a porous separator coated with an aqueous fluoropolymer-based composition [0029]. The fluoropolymer-based composition is a polyvinylidene fluoride-based composition [0029]. The polyvinylidene fluoride-based composition has embodiments wherein the composition is a homopolymer of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0033]. See 112(b) rejection regarding claim 1 above for discussion on the claim limitation of DPVDF. In further embodiments the polyvinylidene fluoride is crosslinked [0063].
While claim 1 includes the product-by-process limitation of “DPVDF is dip-coated on the separator and crosslinked”, patentability is based on the product itself. The product of claim 1 is merely a separator with crosslinked DPVDF on a surface. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 for further discussion.
Regarding claim 2, Amin-Sanayei discloses the separator of claim 1. Amin-Sanayei further discloses the use of polypropylene film (M 2400 by CELGARD) for use as a porous separator to be coated with the polyvinylidene fluoride-based composition [0075].
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.
Claims 3 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Sanayei et al. (US 2015/0030906).
Regarding claim 3, Amin-Sanayei discloses the separator of claim 1. Amin-Sanayei further discloses the coating layer comprises powdery particles in addition to the aqueous fluoropolymer-based composition [0029, 0040]. The powdery particles make up 50 to 99 weight percent of the coating [0045]. Therefore, Amin-Sanayei implicitly discloses embodiments wherein the PVDF is in a weight percent of 1 to 50 weight percent of the coating. See MPEP 2144.04(I) for discussion on obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 4, Amin-Sanayei discloses the separator of claim 1. Amin-Sanayei further discloses a porous substrate is used as the separator to be coated with the polyvinylidene fluoride-based composition [0057]. The porous substrate has a pore diameter of 0.001 to 50 microns (µm) [0059]. See MPEP 2144.04(I) for discussion on obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Amin-Sanayei discloses the separator of claim 1. Amin-Sanayei further discloses the thickness of the coating comprising PVDF is 0.5 to 15 microns (µm) [0062]. See MPEP 2144.04(I) for discussion on obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Han et al. (US 2024/0372216 A1) discloses a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery, including: a crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support having a crosslinked structure including polymer chains interconnected directly with one another; an inorganic composite porous layer disposed on at least one surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support and including an inorganic filler and a first binder polymer; and a porous adhesive layer disposed on the inorganic composite porous layer and including a second binder polymer. The present disclosure also relates to a method for preparing the separator and a lithium secondary battery including the separator. The crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery shows improved high-temperature safety and excellent adhesion to an electrode. The method for manufacturing a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery includes adding a photoinitiator to a coating solution for forming a porous adhesive layer, and thus requires no additional equipment for the photo-crosslinking of a polyolefin porous support, thereby realizing a simplified process.
Kim et al. (US 2024/0014511 A1) discloses a separator including: a porous substrate; a first coating layer arranged on at least one surface of the porous substrate, the first coating layer including a binder and inorganic particles, wherein the binder includes a cross-linked product of an aqueous cross-linking reactive poly(vinylamide)-based copolymer, wherein the poly(vinylamide)-based copolymer includes repeating units derived from vinylamide monomers and repeating units derived from cross-linking reactive group-containing monomers, and is cross-linked by the cross-linking reactive groups; and a second coating layer arranged on both surfaces of the porous substrate on which the first coating layer is arranged, the second coating layer including an acrylic copolymer and a polyvinylidene fluoride-based binder in a weight ratio of greater than 1:1 and less than 1:4. The separator has high thermal resistance characteristics and enhanced electrode plate adhesion, and therefore, a lithium battery having excellent lifespan characteristics may be provided.
Jia et al. (US 2021/0399382 A1) discloses a polymer battery separator with an interpenetrating network structure and a preparation method thereof are disclosed. A multilayer microporous separator includes a PVDF layer, and a PE-PVDF porous substrate located on a surface of the PVDF layer. Finger-like through holes with a pore size of 100-150 nm are distributed in the PVDF finger-like pore layer. An interpenetrating network structure with a pore size of 50-100 nm is distributed on an interface between the PVDF finger-like pore layer and the PE microporous layer. Micropores with a pore size of 20-50 nm are distributed in the PE microporous layer. The surface of the PVDF layer is covered with the PE-PVDF porous substrate, so that the multilayer microporous separator forms an interpenetrating network structure, which has improved thermal stability and high-temperature resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/J.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
