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 .
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.
Claim 1 thus dependent claims 2-13 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 1 recites TMA fracture, what does TMA stand for? It is unclear what this abbreviation means, therefore is indefinite. The Applicant should amend the term TMA, and add the full form of the term.
Claim 4 recites “permeability”. It is unclear what type of permeability the claim requires. Is it i.e. air permeability, relative permeability, absolute, effective? Please clarify what type of permeability is being claimed.
Claim 5 recites “3 to 25µm”. The value “3” does not have a unit, please amend to incorporate the appropriate unit.
Claim 6 recites “0.5 to 20µm.” The value “0.5” does not have a unit, please amend to incorporate the appropriate unit.
Claim 7 recites “0.01 to 3µm”. The value “0.01” does not have a unit, please amend to incorporate the appropriate unit.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170125766A1 (Harumoto).
Claim 1, Harumoto teaches a polyolefin multilayer microporous membrane [abs]; a separator for a secondary battery, the separator comprising: a porous substrate; and an inorganic coating layer formed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate [0031-0033, 0173-0180] and including an inorganic material [0128-0129], wherein an average particle diameter D50 of the inorganic material is 3 to 20% of a thickness of the inorganic coating layer [Harumoto teaches the diameter is 0.1µm to 3.0 µm (0130]; the thickness is not more than 25µm (0069); therefore upon calculation of 3µm/25µm *100 = 12%; which falls within the claimed range] . Harumoto does not explicitly teach wherein a TMA fracture temperature of the separator is 150 °C or higher; It is noted, the TMA fracture temperature is measured using an instrument [i.e. device], therefore this limitation is being interpreted as: how the temperature affects the performance of the battery which leads to how the separator of the battery (i.e. product) appear structurally; In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e -----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ----. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Harumoto teaches the meltdown temperature is not lower than 150°C [0089-0090]. The lower limit of the meltdown temperature of the polyolefin multilayer microporous membrane of this embodiment is preferably not lower than 150° C., more preferably not lower than 160° C., even more preferably not lower than 165° C., and even more preferably not lower than 170° C. In addition, the upper limit of the meltdown temperature is preferably not higher than 190° C. When the meltdown temperature is within the range described above, the heat resistance is superior. The meltdown temperature can be enhanced by including a polypropylene having a higher melting point than that of polyethylene in the polyolefin multilayer microporous membrane, but the meltdown temperature can be set to within a range of not lower than the melting point of the resin containing the polypropylene by adjusting the content of the polypropylene of the first layer or appropriately adjusting the thickness ratio of the first layer/second layer.
A skilled artisan understands that the TMA fracture temperature and the meltdown temperature are related, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the TMA temperature of the separator at 150 °C or higher in view of Harumoto teaching the meltdown temperature to be at 150 °C or higher; as this allows the heat resistance to be superior which enables good battery performance [0089]. In addition, a skilled artisan understands the TMA fracture temperature is a direct mechanical measure of when the separator fails; whereas the meltdown temperature is a functional measure of when ion transport stops; which may occur slightly before or after a mechanical rupture depending on material and structure. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position, since the TMA fracture temperature and the meltdown temperature are related, a skilled artisan would easily be able to adjust the TMA fracture temperature using an instrument in view of the teachings of Harumoto and set it to be 150 °C or higher .
Claim 3, Harumoto does not explicitly teach wherein a breakdown area of the separator is 15 mm2 or less. However, a skilled artisan understands a breakdown area of a separator refers to the effective pore collapse area that occurs when the separators mechanical integrity is most due to thermal loss, which is often linked to the TMA fracture, the point at which the separators dimensional stability is compromised, leading to pore closure and loss of ionic conductivity. As noted above in claim 1, a skilled artisan would easily be able to adjust the TMA fracture temperature using an instrument in view of the teachings of Harumoto and set it to be 150 °C or higher which would also then lead to a breakdown area of the separator is 15 mm2 or less, as one would achieve the benefits of a good separator for a battery, as the “breakdown area” in a separator’s TMA fracture is the pore-closure or fracture region identified by TMA, marking the temperature at which the separator’s mechanical integrity fails, triggering the shutdown function and preventing thermal runaway.
Claim 4, Harumoto does not teach wherein the permeability of the separator is 10 to 200 sec/100cc. It is noted, permeability is an intrinsic property; meaning permeability describes how easily water/fluid can flow through a porous medium. It is influenced by pore size, shape, saturation, pressure, etc…. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, Harumoto inherently teaches the permeability as claimed, as it teaches the required structure of claim 1. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 5, Harumoto teaches, wherein a thickness of the porous substrate is 3 to 25 μm [0069; not greater than 25 μm; which falls within the claimed range].
Claim 6, Harumoto teaches wherein a thickness of the inorganic coating layer is 0.5 to 20 μm [0069; it is noted, Harumoto teaches the thickness of the substrate is not greater than 25 μm; and the thickness is after the coating layer; therefore, it is the examiner’s position, the coating layer falls within the claimed range as the total thickness of the substrate is less than 25 μm].
Claim 7, Harumoto teaches wherein the average particle diameter D50 of the inorganic material is 0.01 to 3 μm [0130].
Claim 8, Harumoto does not explicitly teach wherein a planar density of the inorganic material and a planar density of the inorganic coating layer satisfy the relationship of Equation 1 below, [Equation 1]
95 ≤ (planar density of inorganic material)/(planar density of inorganic coating layer) × 100(%) ≤ 99. However, it is noted, a skilled artisan understands planar density is a material property and a key structural characteristic in materials science. It is a direction- and plane-specific measure of atomic packing in a crystal lattice, calculated as the number of atoms per unit area in a given crystallographic plane. Furthermore, it is measurable, structure dependent property that is directly linked to atomic arrangement to size/pore of the material. Therefore, Harumoto inherently teaches the planar density as claimed as this is considered to be a characteristic of the material, and Harumoto teaches the material as required by claim 1. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 9, Harumoto teaches wherein the inorganic material is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3) [0128-0129].
Claim 10, Harumoto teaches wherein the inorganic coating layer further includes a binder [0128].
Claim 11, Harumoto teaches wherein the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoro propylene (PVdF-HFP) [0048; 0129].
Claim 12, Harumoto teaches wherein the porous substrate is at least one selected from the group consisting of polypropylene [0031-0033]
Claim 13, Harumoto teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; the separator for a secondary battery of claim 1 interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and an electrolyte [0141-0143].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170125766A1 (Harumoto) further in view of US2016/0218340 (Ryu)
Claim 2, Harumoto does not teach wherein a breakdown voltage of the separator is 1kV or more. Ryu teaches a separator for electrochemical device [abs] and teaches the breakdown voltage as claimed [0006, 0014-0016; 0186, table 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the separator of Harumoto such that the separator has a breakdown voltage of 1 KV or more because Ryu teaches that separators with the breakdown voltage as noted in Table 1 exhibit excellent tensile strength while exhibiting better properties in the aspects of the thermal shrinkage, air permeability dielectric breakdown voltage, and tortuosity. [0186].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights