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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 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 § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/26/2026.
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.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0173479) (Han) (of record) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0365860) (Ryu) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a method for manufacturing a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery (title; abstract; [0131]), comprising: supplying polyolefin and a diluting agent to an extruder to extrude a polyolefin composition ([0024]; [0083]; [0092]); molding and orienting the extruded polyolefin composition into the form of an oriented sheet ([0025]-[0026]; [0084]-[0085]; [0101]); dipping the oriented sheet in an extraction solution to extract the diluting agent, thereby providing a polyolefin-based porous support ([0027]-[0028]; [0086]-[0087]; [0108]-[0115])); and irradiating ultraviolet rays to the polyolefin-based porous support ([0030]; [0089]; [0125]-[0129]). Han further discloses that the extraction solution used to extract the diluting agent can also be used as a photocurable composition which includes a photoinitiator, wherein the solvent for the extraction solution is also the solvent for the photoinitiator ([0111]-[0112]). Thus, this photocurable composition corresponds to the claimed lower layer of the extraction solution. Han further discloses that the photoinitiator and a crosslinking agent can each independently be present in an amount of 0.1-20 parts by weight based on 100 parts of the photocurable composition ([0081]), which includes the photoinitiator, the crosslinking agent, and the solvent ([0068]; [0111]-[0112]). Thus, Han necessarily discloses that the photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.1 (0.1/(100-0.1-0.1)) to 33 (20/(100-20-20)) parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the solvent, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01-0.3 parts by weight. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen an amount of the photoinitiator to be within the claimed range based on routine experimentation of the overlapping range disclosed by Han. Han fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the extraction solution includes an upper layer, wherein the upper layer comprises a non-solvent for the photoinitiator.
Ryu teaches a similar method for manufacturing a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery (title; [0032]), comprising: supplying polyolefin and a diluting agent to an extruder to extrude a polyolefin composition ([0011]; [0046]); molding and orienting the extruded polyolefin composition into the form of an oriented sheet ([0012]; [0047]); dipping the oriented sheet in an extraction solution to extract the diluting agent, thereby providing a polyolefin-based porous support ([0013]; [0048]; [0084]). Ryu further teaches that the extraction solution comprises an upper layer and a lower layer, the lower layer comprising a solvent for extracting the diluting agent, and the upper layer comprising a non-solvent (water) in which a crosslinking catalyst is insoluble ([0080]-[0084]). Ryu further teaches that configuring the extraction solution to have these two layers helps to prevent evaporation of the extraction solvent ([0083]; [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extraction solution disclosed by Han to include an upper layer comprising a non-solvent for the photoinitiator (i.e., water), as suggested by Ryu, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent evaporation of the extraction solvent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Han discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Han discloses that the solvent for the photoinitiator can also be the solvent for the diluting agent in the extraction solution (Han: [0112]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Han discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Han further discloses that the extraction solvent for the diluting agent can include methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, or hexane (Han: [0110]), suggesting the claimed methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, and hexane alternative limitations. However, because the list of claimed solvents is set in the alternative, examiner notes that modified Han need only disclose one of the alternative limitations in order to satisfy claim 3.
Regarding claims 6, modified Han discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Ryu teaches that the non-solvent in the upper layer of the extraction solution is water (Ryu: [0080]-[0084]), suggesting the claimed water alternative limitation. Therefore, since modified Han includes the teachings from Ryu regarding the upper layer of the extraction solution, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Han to have satisfied claim 6.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0173479) (Han) (of record) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0365860) (Ryu) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0343506) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 7, modified Han discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. While modified Han discloses that the photoinitiator is not particularly limited as long as it can be applied to photopolymerization (Han: [0079]), modified Han fails to explicitly disclose that the photoinitiator is a Type 2 photoinitiator of the type specified in claims 4 and 5. Modified Han also fails to disclose the claimed UV irradiation dose in claim 7.
However, the use of Type 2 photoinitiators under the claimed UV irradiation conditions is known in the art. For instance, Kim teaches a similar method for manufacturing a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery (title; [0020]), wherein the method involves crosslinking polyolefin through the use of a photoinitiator during a UV irradiation step (abstract; [0021]; [0031]; [0037]-[0038]; [0044]; [0052]). Kim further teaches that the photoinitiator is preferably a Type 2 photoinitiator (hydrogen abstraction photoinitiator) ([0038]), and specifically thioxanthone, a thioxanthone derivative, benzophenone, a benzophenone derivative, or two or more of them ([0039]), suggesting the claimed list of alternative limitations in claim 5. Kim further teaches that using this type of photoinitiator can lead to an improved photocrosslinking effect ([0039]). Kim further teaches that the UV rays in the irradiation step are irradiated at a dose of 2000 mJ/cm2 (2 J/cm2) ([0056]; [0059]; [0062]; [0065]), which falls within the claimed range of 10-2000 mJ/cm2. Kim further teaches that such an irradiation step is associated with generating bond structures in an economically efficient and productive manner ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photoinitiator disclosed by modified Han to be one of the claimed Type 2 photoinitiators, as taught by Kim, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to an improved photocrosslinking effect. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a UV irradiation dose within the claimed range during the irradiation step, as taught by Kim, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that this would be an economically efficient and productive way of producing the desired polyolefin bond structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryu et al. (KR 20210027640 with English Machine Translation) discloses a method of manufacturing a crosslinked polyolefin separator (title; abstract), wherein an extraction solvent in a diluting agent extraction step can include a lower layer with an extraction solvent and an upper layer comprising water ([0041]-[0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/BRENDON CHARLES DARBY/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights