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 1–10 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 2024/0283088 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. 16/979,816, filed on 10 September 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 April 2024 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 April 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971). See also Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934).
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same... [footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP § 2113 for more information on the analogous burden of proof applied to product-by-process 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Inagaki et al. (US 2012/0164538 A1, hereinafter Inagaki).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki discloses a separator for an electrochemical device comprising:
a porous substrate (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]),
wherein the porous substrate comprises polyethylene and propylene (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]);
wherein the porous substrate has a porosity of 45% or less (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]); and
wherein the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyethylene ranges from 300,000 to 500,000 (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]), and
Inagaki discloses Examples 13 to 27 that are separators comprising a porous substrate composed of 95 parts by weight of PE(B) having a molecular weight of 300,000 (see PE(B), [0164]), and 5 parts by weight of PP having a molecular weight of 300,000 (see PP, [0173]). The porous substrates have a porosity of 40% (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]) and a thickness of 9 μm (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]).
Inagaki does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the porous substrate satisfies the following conditions a), b) and c), when the porous substrate is pressurized at 40° C from 0.04 N to 1 N at a rate of 0.25 N/min and depressurized from 1 N to 0.04 N at the rate of 0.25 N/min: a) a compressibility of 15% or less when the pressure reaches 1 N, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less within the pressure range of 0.04 N to 1 N, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less.
Inagaki discloses a porous substrate identical or substantially identical to the disclosed separator (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]) and made by an identical or substantially identical method (TABLE 2, [0153]–[0158]).
The instant application discloses the porous substrate possessing the claimed properties is manufactured by the steps of: (S1) preparing a mixture; (S2) forming an extruded sheet; (S3) forming a film; (S4) removing a pore-forming agent; and (S5) carrying out orientation-relaxation of the film (see wet process, [0056]).
Inagaki discloses a porous substrate is manufactured by the steps of: (S1) preparing a mixture (see polymer-containing mixture, [0153]); (S2) forming an extruded sheet (see extruded, [0155]); (S3) forming a film (see stretched, [0156]); (S4) removing a pore-forming agent (see extraction, [0157]); and (S5) carrying out orientation-relaxation of the film (see relaxation, [0158]). These steps are substantially identical to the steps described in the instant application (e.g., [0057]–[0063]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the porous substrate inherently possesses: a) a compressibility of 15% or less when the pressure reaches 1 N, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less within the pressure range of 0.04 N to 1 N, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less when the porous substrate is pressurized at 40° C from 0.04 N to 1 N at a rate of 0.25 N/min and depressurized from 1 N to 0.04 N at the rate of 0.25 N/min.
Regarding claim 2, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate further comprises polypropylene in an amount greater than 0 wt % up to 5 wt % based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]).
Regarding claim 3, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the polyethylene is present in an amount of 80 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]).
Regarding claim 4, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate has a thickness of 5 μm to 20 μm (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]).
Regarding claim 5, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein when a plurality of specimens of the separator are prepared, a percentage of specimens of the separator in which a short-circuit occurs at 75 V or less, is less than 1% based on a total number of specimens of the separator.
Inagaki discloses a porous substrate identical or substantially identical to the disclosed separator and made by an identical or substantially identical method as detailed above. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the porous substrate inherently possesses wherein when a plurality of specimens of the separator are prepared, a percentage of specimens of the separator in which a short-circuit occurs at 75 V or less, is less than 1% based on a total number of specimens of the separator.
Regarding claim 6, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate has pores formed by removing a pore-forming agent from a mixture of a polymer resin with the pore-forming agent (see liquid paraffin, [0153]).
Regarding claim 8, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a separator for an electrochemical device:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2012/0164538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujikawa et al. (US 2006/0286439 A1, hereinafter Fujikawa).
Regarding claim 5, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein when a plurality of specimens of the separator are prepared, a percentage of specimens of the separator in which a short-circuit occurs at 75 V or less, is less than 1% based on a total number of specimens of the separator.
Fujikawa discloses a separator wherein when a plurality of specimens of the separator are prepared, a percentage of specimens of the separator in which a short-circuit occurs at 75 V or less, is less than 1% based on a total number of specimens of the separator to improve the safety during an internal short circuit and the storage characteristics of a lithium secondary battery having a high energy density ([0006], TABLE 3, [0144]). Inagaki and Fujikawa are analogous art because they are directed to separators for electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the porous substrate of Inagaki with the insulation failure rate of Fujikawa in order to improve the safety during an internal short circuit and the storage characteristics of a lithium secondary battery having a high energy density.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2012/0164538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2016/0336569 A1, hereinafter Mizuno).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate satisfies at each of the conditions of the compressibility is 15% or less, the maximum compressibility is 17% or less, and the permanent strain is 15%.
Inagaki discloses a porous substrate identical or substantially identical to the disclosed separator and made by an identical or substantially identical method as detailed above.. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the porous substrate inherently possesses a compressibility of 15% or less, a maximum compressibility of 17% or less, and a permanent strain of 15%.
Inagaki does not explicitly discloses a separator for an electrochemical device, which further comprises:
a heat resistant layer on at least one surface of the porous substrate,
wherein the heat resistant layer comprises a binder resin with inorganic particles, and
wherein each inorganic particle comprises at least one of an oxide, or a hydroxide, and
wherein the oxide and hydroxide independently comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum, magnesium, silicon, zirconium, calcium, strontium, barium, antimony, tin, zinc and rare earth elements.
Mizuno discloses a separator comprising a heat resistant layer on at least one surface of a porous substrate (TABLE 1, [0155]), wherein the heat resistant layer comprises a binder resin with inorganic particles (TABLE 1, [0155]), and wherein each inorganic particle comprises at least one of an oxide, or a hydroxide (TABLE 1, [0155]), and wherein the oxide and hydroxide independently comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum, magnesium, silicon, zirconium, calcium, strontium, barium, antimony, tin, zinc and rare earth elements (TABLE 1, [0155]) to improve the oxidation resistance, adhesion to an electrode material, electrolyte permeability of the separator (see porous layer, [0004]). Inagaki and Mizuno are analogous art because they are directed to separators for electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the separator of Inagaki with the heat resistant layer of Mizuno in order to improve the oxidation resistance, adhesion to an electrode material, electrolyte permeability of the separator.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2012/0164538 A1) in view of Inagaki (US 2012/0164538 A1) in view of Takita et al. (US 2009/0286161 A1, hereinafter Takita).
Regarding claim 9, Inagaki discloses a method for selecting a porous substrate of a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising the steps of:
(S1) preparing a porous substrate comprising polyethylene, and polypropylene (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]), and
the porous substrate having thickness of 5 μm to 20 μm (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]);
wherein the polypropylene is present in the porous substrate in an amount greater than 0 wt% up to 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the porous substrate (TABLE 2, [0173]), and
wherein the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyethylene ranges from 300,000 to 500,000 (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]), and
Inagaki discloses Examples 13 to 27 that are separator comprising a porous substrate composed of 95 parts by weight of PE(B), which has a molecular weight of 300,000 (see PE(B), [0164]), and 5 parts by weight of PP, which has a molecular weight of 300,000 (see PP, [0173]). The porous substrates have a porosity of 40% (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]) and a thickness of 9 μm (TABLE 2, [0173]–[0180]).
Inagaki does not explicitly disclose:
(S2) measuring compressibility, maximum compressibility and permanent strain of the porous substrate; and
(S3) selecting the porous substrate that satisfies the conditions of a) a compressibility of 15% or less, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less.
Takita discloses a method for selecting a porous substrate of a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising the steps of (S2) measuring compressibility, maximum compressibility and permanent strain of a porous substrate (TABLE 1, [0118]); and (S3) selecting the porous substrate that satisfies the conditions of a) a compressibility of 15% or less, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less (TABLE 1, [0118]) to improve the capacity and cyclability of the battery using the separator (see thickness variation ratio, [0118]). Inagaki and Takita are analogous art because they are directed to separators for electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Inagaki to include the measuring and selecting steps of Takita in order to improve the capacity and cyclability of the battery using the separator.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2012/0164538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonen (EP 2111912 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Inagaki discloses all claim limitations set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein an amount of polypropylene present in the porous substrate is 4.7 wt % to 4.8 wt% based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (TABLE 2, [0173]).
Tonen discloses a separator for an electrochemical device comprising a porous substrate (TABLE 1, [0096]), wherein the porous substrate comprises polyethylene (TABLE 1, [0096]); wherein the polyethylene has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 300,000 to 500,000 (TABLE 1, [0096]); wherein the porous substrate has a porosity of 45% or less (TABLE 1, [0096]); and the polyethylene is present in an amount of 80 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the porous substrate, and the polypropylene is present in the porous substrate in an amount greater than 0 wt % up to 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the porous substrate (TABLE 1, [0096]) and wherein the polypropylene is present in the porous substrate in an amount of 3 wt % to 20 wt % based on 100 wt% of the porous substrate (see polypropylene, [0021]) to enhance electrolyte injection, shrinkage, compression and shut down properties (see microporous film, [0015]). Inagaki and Tonen are analogous art because they are directed to separators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the porous substrate of Inagaki with the amount of polypropylene of Tonen in order enhance electrolyte injection, shrinkage, compression and shut down properties.
Although Tonen does not explicitly disclose a range of 4.7 wt % to 4.8 wt %, Tonen does disclose an overlapping range (e.g., 3 wt % to 20 wt %). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,002,986 B2 (hereinafter the reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1–8 of the reference patent anticipate instant claims 1–10.
Regarding claim 1, the reference patent discloses a separator for an electrochemical device comprising:
a porous substrate (C20/L3),
wherein the porous substrate comprises polyethylene and polypropylene (C20L4–5);
wherein the porous substrate satisfies the following conditions a), b) and c), when the porous substrate is pressurized at 40° C. from 0.04 N to 1 N at a rate of 0.25 N/min and depressurized from 1 N to 0.04 N at the rate of 0.25 N/min: a) a compressibility of 15% or less when the pressure reaches 1 N, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less within the pressure range of 0.04 N to 1 N, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less (C20/L6–15);
wherein the porous substrate has a porosity of 45% or less (C20/L16–17); and
wherein the polyethylene has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 300,000 to 500,000 (C20/L18–19).
Regarding claim 2, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the polypropylene is present in the porous substrate in an amount greater than 0 wt % up to 5 wt % based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (C20/L22–24).
Regarding claim 3, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the polyethylene is present in an amount of 80 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (C20/L20–21).
Regarding claim 4, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate has a thickness of 5 μm to 20 μm (C20/L26–27).
Regarding claim 5, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein when a plurality of specimens of the separator are prepared, a percentage of specimens of the separator in which a short-circuit occurs at 75 V or less, is less than 1% based on a total number of specimens of the separator (C20/L38–42).
Regarding claim 6, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein the porous substrate has pores formed by removing a pore-forming agent from a mixture of a polymer resin with the pore-forming agent (C20/L29–31).
Regarding claim 7, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device, which further comprises:
a heat resistant layer on at least one surface of the porous substrate (C20/L44-45, C20/L52–53),
wherein the heat resistant layer comprises a binder resin with inorganic particles (C20/L54–55),
wherein each inorganic particle comprises at least one of an oxide, or a hydroxide (C20/L56–57), and
wherein the oxide and hydroxide independently comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum, magnesium, silicon, zirconium, calcium, strontium, barium, antimony, tin, zinc and rare earth elements (C20/L58–62).
Regarding claim 8, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device, which further comprises
a heat resistant layer on at least one surface of the porous substrate (C20/L44-45),
wherein the porous substrate satisfies each of the conditions of: the compressibility of 15% or less, the maximum compressibility of 17% or less, and the permanent strain of 12% or less (C20/L45–49).
Regarding claim 10, the reference patent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator for an electrochemical device:
wherein an amount of polypropylene present in the porous substrate is 4.7 wt % to 4.8 wt % based on 100 wt % of the porous substrate (C20/L34–36).
Regarding claim 9, the reference patent discloses a method for selecting a porous substrate of a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising the steps of:
(S1) preparing a porous substrate comprising polyethylene, and polypropylene, and having thickness of 5 μm to 20 μm (C20/L65–67);
(S2) measuring compressibility, maximum compressibility and permanent strain of the porous substrate (C21/L1–2); and
(S3) selecting the porous substrate that satisfies the conditions of: a) a compressibility of 15% or less, b) a maximum compressibility of 18% or less, and c) a permanent strain of 13% or less (C21/L3–7), and
wherein the polyethylene has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 300,000 to 500,000 (C21/L8–9).
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
Prosecution Insights