DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 20, 24 and 25 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 22, 23 and 26 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities. There is no period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In the present case, claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1 on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0203757, hereinafter Park in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0335759, hereinafter Lane.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a battery cell (abstract, paragraphs [0163-0172] and figures 4-6). The battery cell comprises a negative electrode current collector (51). A protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) coats the negative electrode current collector (51). The protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) is formed of a lithium-ion conducting solid state electrolyte (paragraphs [0088-0090, 0166, 0167]).
The battery cell further includes a positive electrode (43) and a separator (60). The separator (60) is a permeable membrane separator formed of a polyolefin-based polymer (paragraphs [0105, 0106]).
Park teaches lithium plating (53) located between the negative electrode current collector (51) and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) (paragraph [0088] and figure 6).
Park fails to teach a separator coating, first and second bonds having the claimed relative adhesion strengths and that the separator (60) contacts the positive electrode (43).
Lane teaches a battery separator (20) which comprises a microporous polyolefin membrane (24) and a coating layer (22) applied on one side of the microporous polyolefin membrane (24) (paragraphs [0143, 0147] and figure 13). The coating layer (22) faces the battery anode and its purpose is to optimize the shutdown temperature of the battery, prevent shrinkage and oxidation and block dendrite growth (paragraphs [0136, 0092, 0143]). The coating layer (22) further includes PVDF and is engineered to have a high adhesive strength to the anode, such as exceeding 20 N/m (paragraphs [0067, 0068, 0091, 0131, 0136, 0137]). The coating layer (22) is distinct from any electrolyte present within the membrane (24). Lane teaches heat-pressing the electrode-separator assembly at 90°C (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat Park’s membrane separator (60) with a coating layer on the anode electrode side of the separator (60), the coating layer including PVDF and being distinct from any electrolyte present within the separator (60) and having a high adhesive strength to the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) for the purpose of improving the separator’s properties such as its shutdown temperature and shrinkage and to assist in blocking dendrites and preventing oxidation as taught by Lane.
In the combination of Park and Lane, the separator (60) would have no coating layer on the side facing the positive electrode (43) and in the assembled state would thus be in contact with the positive electrode (43). The coating layer applied on the negative electrode side of the separator (60) would be the instantly claimed “separator coating layer”.
All the layers are stacked and coated on each other, therefore there inherently is a first bond between the negative current collector (51) and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and there is a second bond between the separator coating layer and the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”).
As in the instant case, Park teaches that lithium metal plates onto the negative current collector (51), such that it is between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative current collector (51) (paragraphs [0028, 0075]). Moreover, particularly taking into account the engineered high attachment strength of the separator coating layer to the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”), it would be expected that the adhesion strength of the second bond is greater than the adhesion strength of the first bond.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the adhesion strength of the second bond is greater than the adhesion strength of the first bond for the purpose of ensuring Park’s desired effect of lithium plating (53) occurring between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative current collector (51).
The examiner notes that claim 1 recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claim 1 recites that the battery cell is formed in part by applying heat (75-100 °C) and pressure (50-200 N/cm2). Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, the battery cell of Park as modified by Lane includes all of the claimed structural limitations. Moreover, Lane teaches heat-pressing the electrode-separator assembly at 90°C (paragraph [0068]). As such, the teaching of Park as modified by Lane is considered to meet claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Park as modified by Lane teaches the claimed structure. It is expected that the specified peel test would confirm the relative strength of the first and second bond.
Regarding claim 5, Park as modified by Lane teaches the battery cell of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches that during charging the lithium plating is formed between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the negative electrode current collector (51) (paragraphs [0024, 0088, 0187] and figure 6). During charging no lithium plating is located between the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) and the separator coating layer (figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches that the separator (60) comprises porous polyethylene or porous polypropylene (paragraph [0106]). The separator (60) is capable of preventing short circuits between the electrodes and allows for transport of lithium ions (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 26, Park teaches that the protective layer (55, “anode coating layer”) is formed of a lithium-ion conducting solid state electrolyte deposited on the negative electrode current collector (51). The solid-state electrolyte is deposited through a sputtering process (paragraph [0167]). A sputtering process generates a spray of material.
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0203757, hereinafter Park in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0335759, hereinafter Lane as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0028768, hereinafter Morita.
Regarding claim 4, Park as modified by Lane teaches that the separator coating layer includes thermoplastic fluoropolymer such as PVDF and a ceramic material (Lane’s paragraphs [0145, 0146]). One purpose of the layer is to prevent oxidation of the microporous polyolefin membrane (Lane’s paragraph [0143]).
Park as modified by Lane fails to teach that the separator coating layer consists of the thermoplastic fluoropolymer.
Morita teaches an analogous separator (23) comprising a microporous polyolefin membrane (23b) and a resin layer (23a) on one surface of the microporous polyolefin membrane (23b) (paragraphs [0109-0111] and figure 3). Morita provides two options for the resin layer (23a). It either consists of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer such as PVDF (paragraphs [0113, 0161]) or like Lane’s configuration includes both the thermoplastic fluoropolymer such as PVDF and a ceramic material (paragraphs [0114, 0115]). The purpose of Morita’s resin layer (23a) is the same as Lane’s - to provide oxidation resistance to the microporous polyolefin membrane (23b) (paragraph [0112]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microporous polyolefin membrane in the combination of Park and Lane could be provided with oxidation resistance by using a separator coating layer which consists of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer such as PVDF and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separator coating layer consisting of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer such as PVDF for the purpose of providing oxidation resistance to the microporous polyolefin membrane.
Regarding claim 23, Park as modified by Lane and Morita teaches that the thermoplastic fluoropolymer is PVDF (Morita’s paragraphs [0113, 0161]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Park and Lane references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights