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
The applicant’s election of claims 1 – 18 made without traverse is acknowledged, and the restriction is hereby made final.
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 1 – 5, 11, and 13 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493 (in IDS filed 4/19/24), and Imazato, US20240222788A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sawamoto teaches a polymer ion conductive film comprising:
an ion migration resistance in the film at 25° C. is 100 Ω or less [0038].
Sawamoto does not teach a thickness of the film after each of immersion treatments under conditions 1 and 2 is 2.5 times or less a thickness of the film before the immersion treatment (swelling ratio 2 or less)[0184]:
(condition 1) immersion at 25° C. for 24 hours in a solution obtained by mixing ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) at a volume ratio of 1/1;
(condition 2) immersion at 25° C. for 24 hours in a 0.1 M aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide.
Imazato teaches a thickness of the film after each of immersion treatments under conditions 1 and 2 is 2.5 times or less a thickness of the film before the immersion treatment (swelling ratio 1.5 – 2)[0184],
(condition 1) immersion at 60° C. for 72 hours in a solution obtained by mixing ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC)[0014].
Imazato does not teach immersion at 25° C. for 24 hours in a solution mixing ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) at a volume ratio of 1/1 and
(condition 2) immersion at 25° C. for 24 hours in a 0.1 M aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide.
However, Imazato teaches the degree of swelling during immersion treatment prevents an increase in internal resistance due to electrolyte swelling during battery operation [0106] which is the same motivation as the instant application [0050]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed immersion conditions as a matter of routine optimization to reduce electrolyte swelling.
Regarding claim 2, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Further, Sawamoto teaches wherein the number of pores having a diameter exceeding 100 nm on at least a surface on one side of the polymer ion conductive film is 5 pores/μm2 or less (substantially no pores)[0036][0037][0055]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 3, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Further, Sawamoto teaches wherein an air permeability is 1000 sec/100 cc or more [0037].
Regarding claim 4, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Imazato teaches wherein the thickness of the film after each of the immersion treatments under the conditions 1 and 2 is 1.5 times or less the thickness of the film before the immersion treatment (swelling ratio 1.5 or less)[0184].
Regarding claim 5, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Imazato teaches wherein the thickness of the film after each of the immersion treatments under the conditions 1 and 2 is 1.0 time or more and 1.5 times or less the thickness of the film before the immersion treatment (swelling ratio 1.5 or less)[0184]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 11, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Further, Sawamoto teaches comprising a polymer having a total atom number density of F atom, O atom, N atom, Cl atom, and S atom of 9% or more and 100% or less (polyether sulfone, polyphenylene sulfide polyamide, polyimide, polyamide imide)[0021].
Regarding claim 13, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1
Further, Sawamoto teaches comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of polyphenylene sulfide, polyamide, polyethersulfone, polyimide, polyamide-imide and copolymers thereof (polyether sulfone, polyphenylene sulfide polyamide, polyimide, polyamide imide)[0021].
Regarding claim 14, Sawamoto teaches a polymer ion conductive film for a secondary battery, which is the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1 [0061].
Regarding claim 15, Sawamoto teaches a composite ion permeable film comprising the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1 on at least one surface of an inorganic ion conductor [0050][0059]
Regarding claim 16, Sawamoto teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode for a battery on at least one surface of the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1 [0059]
Regarding claim 17, Sawamoto teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode for a battery on at least one surface of the composite ion permeable film according to claim 15 [0059].
Regarding claim 18, Sawamoto teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly according to claim 16 [0059][0061].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuta, US20040197631A1.
Regarding claim 6, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a weight reduction rate when heated from 25° C. to 200° C. is 20% or less.
Mitsuta teaches a polymer ion conductive film [0003] wherein a weight reduction rate when heated from 25° C. to 200° C. is 20% or less (10 – 65%)[table 2]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Mitsuta teaches that the polymer within the claimed weight reduction rate results in an excellent oxidation resistance and excellent power generation [0158]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the weight reduction rate of Mitsuta into the polymer film of combined Sawamoto to increase power generation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han, US20230327125A1
Regarding claim 7, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a content of one or more metal elements selected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, magnesium, zinc, and aluminum per 1 g of a polymer constituting the polymer ion conductive film is 50 μg or more and 300,000 μg or less.
Han teaches a polymer ion conductive film [0105] wherein a content of one or more metal elements selected from the group consisting of magnesium, zinc, and aluminum per 1 g of a polymer constituting the polymer ion conductive film is 50 μg or more and 300,000 μg or less (20 – 99 wt%)[0110][0111]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 Further, Han teaches metal elements present within the claimed range ensures sufficient adhesion among the metal particles [0113]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the metal elements in the claimed range of Han into the film of combined Sawamoto to improve adhesion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto, US20160261004A1.
Regarding claim 8, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a Li diffusion distance determined by measurement by a pulsed field gradient nuclear magnetic resonance (PFG-NMR) method is 0.0002 μm or more and 5.5 μm or less.
Yamamoto teaches polymer ion conductive film (polymer separator)[0063] wherein a Li diffusion distance determined by measurement by a pulsed field gradient nuclear magnetic resonance (PFG-NMR) method is 0.0002 μm or more and 5.5 μm or less (15 μm or less)[0072]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Further, Yamamoto teaches wherein the diffusion distance within the claimed range reduces dendrites [0072]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for diffusion distance of Yamamoto into the film of combined Sawamoto to reduce dendrites.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US20210175582A1.
Regarding claim 9, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a content of a lithium element per 1 g of a polymer constituting the polymer ion conductive film is 50 μg or more and 300,000 μg or less
Lee teaches a polymer ion conductive film [0002] wherein a content of a lithium element per 1 g of a polymer constituting the polymer ion conductive film is 50 μg or more and 300,000 μg or less (lithium additive 1 – 10 wt%)[0025][0026]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Further, Lee teaches that the lithium additive within the claimed range prevents dendrites in the film (separator)[0024]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lithium within the claimed range as in Lee into combined Sawamoto to prevent dendrites.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto, US20240396078A1
Regarding claim 10, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a lithium transport number is 0.5 or more and 1.0 or less.
Hashimoto teaches a polymer ion conductive film [0008] wherein a lithium transport number is 0.5 or more and 1.0 or less (0.25 – 0.83)[table 2]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Further, Hashimoto teaches that a lithium transport number within this range provides excellent conductivity [0023][0028]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lithium transport number of Hashimoto into the polymer film of Sawamoto to improve conductivity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawamoto, JP2017014493, and Imazato, US20240222788A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honda, US20140113173A1.
Regarding claim 12, combined Sawamoto teaches the polymer ion conductive film according to claim 1.
Combined Sawamoto does not teach wherein a thermal shrinkage rate at 200° C. is 0% or more and 10% or less.
Honda teaches a polymer ion conductive film (polymer separator)[0024] wherein a thermal shrinkage rate at 200° C. is 0% or more and 10% or less (10% or lower)[0037] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Further, Honda teaches that a thermal shrinkage rate within the claimed range reduces internal stress within the separator [0036]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the combine the thermal shrinkage rate of Honda into the film of combined Sawamoto to reduce internal stress of the film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights