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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naito et al. (US Patent 3,925,332).
Regarding claim 1, Naito et al. discloses a separator for an electrochemical device (or a membrane useful as a separator for storage battery, see abstract and col. 1, lines 4-9; col. 7, lines 43-45), the separator comprising a resin mixture containing ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (col. 2, lines 6-21) and polyethylene (PE; see col. 2 lines 6-21 and 48-54, claims 1-3 and 10, table 2), wherein the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 3.0 to 18.0 mole% of vinyl acetate (VA, or comonomer copolymerized with ethylene in ethylene vinyl acetate) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA). 1.0 to 18.0 mole% of vinyl acetate (VA) is found to be 8.67 wt% to 40.25 wt%.
Naito et al. uses 7.3 mol% of vinyl acetate in example 1; 3.7 mole% and 5.4 mole% in table 2. 7.3 mole%, 3.7 mole% and 5.4 mole% of VA in ethylene vinyl acetate is found to be 19.46 wt%, 10.55wt% and 14.91wt%, which are right within the claimed range of 20wt% or less. The reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Naito et al. discloses an overlapping range of vinyl acetate. The reference does not disclose the exact range of 20 wt% or less of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).
However, 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 8.67wt% to 20wt% of the range 8.67wt% to 40.25wt% disclosed by Naito et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549
Regarding claim 2, Naito et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 19.46 wt%, 10.55wt%, 14.91wt%, 8.67wt% to 20wt% of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA, see claim 1 above), which is right within the claimed range of 1 to 20 wt. % of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).
Regarding claim 3, Naito et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 19.46 wt%, 10.55wt%, 14.91wt%, 8.67wt% to 20wt% of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA). In other words, the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) of Naito et al. contains 80.54wt%, 89.45wt%, 85.09wt%, or 80 to 91.33wt% of ethylene (C2) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), which is right within the claimed range of 80 to 99 wt.% of ethylene (C2) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).
Regarding claim 4, Naito et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, and content ratio of ethylene (C2) to vinyl acetate (VA) is found to be 4.14, 8.48, 5.71 or 4-10.53, which is right within the claimed range of 3.5 to 20.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN111200094, cite No. 1 of Foreign Patent Documents in IDS 7/25/2024, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a separator for an electrochemical device, the separator comprising a resin mixture containing ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and polyethylene (see [0007-0008] of the translation), wherein the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 3-30% (see [0010], [0033], [0043] of the translation).
Zhang et al. uses 10wt% and 20wt% in the examples of the translation, or table 2 in paragraphs [0075] of the original document). 10wt% and 20wt% of VA are right within the claimed range of 20 wt.% or less of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA). The reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Zhang et al. discloses an overlapping range of 3-30%. The reference does not teach the exact range of 20wt% or less vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).
However, 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 3wt% to 20wt% of the range 3-30% disclosed by Zhang et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 10wt% or 20wt%, or 3 to 20 wt. % of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA, see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 10wt% or 20wt%, or 3 to 20 wt. % of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA, see claim 1 above). As such, the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) of Zhang et al. contains 90wt%, 80wt% or 80 to 97 wt.% of ethylene (C2) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contains 10wt% or 20wt% of vinyl acetate (VA) based on the total amount of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA, see claim 1 above). As such, the wherein the content ratio of ethylene (C2) to vinyl acetate (VA) is 9 and 4, which is right within a range of 3.5 to 20.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhang et al. discloses the resin mixture contains the content of ethylene vinyl acetate to be 1-3% of the polyethylene content ([0043] of the translation) and uses 1, 1.5 and 2 kg of EVA based on a 100 kg of polyethylene (see table 2 of the original document). As such, Zhang et al. discloses the resin mixture contains 1 to 3 wt. % of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) based on the total amount of the resin mixture.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches the resin mixture contains 0.35wt% of vinyl acetate (see table 4 of the original document) or 0.1 to 0.4 (see figs. 2a-b of the original document). 0.35 and 0.1-0.4 are right within the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 wt. % of vinyl acetate based on the total weight of the resin mixture; and therefore, there are 97 to 99.9 wt.% of ethylene (C2) based on the total weight of the resin mixture is
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. disclose a separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches the molecular weight of the ethylene vinyl acetate is 200-2000g/mol (see [0010] and [0043] of the translation). As such, Zhang et al. teaches weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) is less than 320000 g/ mol. Zhang et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) will display the property and characteristic of a melting point (Tm) of 80°C to 130°C. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches using the separator for an electrochemical device including electrolyte with wettability (see [0036] of the translation). As such, Zhang et al. teaches using the separator as a wet separator. Furthermore, how to use the separator is directed to the intended use of the separator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view Yong et al. (KR 20060035885, see machine translation) .
Regarding claims 7-8, Zhang et al. disclose a separator as in claim 1 above, and teaches the molecular weight of the ethylene vinyl acetate is 200-2000g/mol (see [0010] and [0043] of the translation), which is less than 320000 g/ mol.
Zhang et al. does not the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) has a melting point (Tm) of 80°C to 130°C, nor do they teach the resin mixture has a degree of crystallinity of 20% to 50%.
Yong et al. teaches a polymer layer having a melting point of 95 to 150oC and degree of crystallinity of 30 to 99% to improve safety for the battery (see page 3 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a melting point (Tm) of 95°C to 150°C and the resin mixture with a degree of crystallinity of 30-99% to improve safety. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portions 95-130oC and 30-50% of the ranges 95 to 150oC and 30 to 99% for the melting temperature and the degree of crystallinity, respectively, disclosed by Yong et al.; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 54920% to 50%.
Claim(s) 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0028065).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the separator for an electrochemical device has a thickness of 1 mm to 100 mm, and a porosity of 20 vol.% to 70 vol.%, and an average pore diameter of 0.01 mm to 1 mm.
Park et al. discloses a separator having a thickness of 12-16 mm or 13-17mm (see [0047]), which is right within the claimed range of 1 mm to 100 mm; a porosity of 20 to 50% or 30-60% (see [0019]), which is right within the claimed range of 20 vol.% to 70 vol.%; and an average pore diameter of 20 to 50nm or 22 to 70nm (see [0016-0017]), or 0.02-0.05mm or 0.022-0.070 mm which are right within the claimed range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Zhang et al. by forming the separator to have a thickness, porosity and average pore diameter as taught by Park et al., because Park teaches separators would improve wettability and the degassing property, thereby allowing no leak of an electrolyte solution, less expansion and eventually maintaining good battery performances even under long-term use and being less deformed by external impart, thus providing electrode assembly with good strength and improved battery performances including stability (see [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the separator further comprises a porous coating layer which is formed on one or both sides thereof, wherein the porous coating layer comprises inorganic particles and a binder polymer.
Park et al. teaches the separator including a porous coating formed on at least one surface of the porous polymeric substrate, wherein the porous coating layer formed from inorganic particles and a binder polymer (see [0020-0021], [0040-0042]) to provide a separator with good heat resistance, enhanced stability, and increased electrical resistance, improved ionic conductivity (see [0043-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Zhang et al. by forming a porous coating layer of inorganic particles and a binder polymer on at least one side/surface of the separator as taught by Park et al.; because Park et al. teaches such coating would provide a separator with good heat resistance, enhanced stability, and increased electrical resistance, improved ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 14 above, wherein Zhang teaches an electrochemical device comprising a positive electrode (see cathode 5), a negative electrode (see anode 1), and the separator (3) interposed between the positive electrode (5) and the negative electrode (1, see figs. 1-3).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0154140).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhang et al. teaches providing a high-strength separator (see [0002]).
Zhang et al. does not measure the strength in punction strength the separator for an electrochemical device has a puncture strength of 160 gf or higher, and a standard deviation of puncture strength of 8.0 or less.
Yamamoto et al. discloses a separator having preferred puncture strength of 2.2N or more and preferably a standard deviation of 0.9 N or less ([0071]). 2.2N is 224.34 gf , that is higher than 160 gf. 0.9 is less than 8.0.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the separator of Zhang et al. to have the puncture strength of higher than 224.34 gf and a standard deviation of 0.9N or less as taught by Yamamoto et al., because Zhang et al. teaches forming a high strength separator and Yamamoto et al. teaches such puncture strength and standard deviation would provide a separator having a high level of resistance to piercing ([0002] of Yamamoto et al.).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhang et al. teaches providing a high-strength separator (see [0002]).
Zhang et al. does not perform a PC drop area test to measure the strength of the separator such that the separator has a PC drop area of higher than 8 mm2, wherein the PC drop area is measured 5 minutes after dropping 2 mL of propylene carbonate on a surface of the separator.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the separator having a PC drop area of higher than 8mm2 as claimed, because Zhang et al. teaches forming the separator with high strength.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view Katayama et al. (EP 1826842).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. discloses a separator as in claim 1 above, and the polyethylene (PE) contributes the majority of the resin mixture of the separator (see table 2 of the original document).
Zhang et al. does not explicitly disclose the separator having a shut-down temperature of 100°C to 145°C.
Katayama et al. teaches a separator made of mainly polyethylene (PE) having a shutdown temperature of 105oC or 125oC (see table 3). 105oC or 125oC are right within the claimed range of 100°C to 145°C.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the separator having a shutdown temperature of 105oC or 125oC as taught by Katayama et al., because Katayama et al. teaches such separator would have excellent safety at a time of abnormal heating (see [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights