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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended the claims with added limitations and are rejected under new grounds of rejection with a newly found prior art.
Newly submitted claims 82-84 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Applicant elected only dry adhesion agent; however, the added new claims contain both dry and wet adhesion agents.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 82-84 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 4, 30, 42, 56, 64-65 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al (US 20200335759 A1) (WO 2018017944 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20160049628 A1), Park et al (US 20150104696 A1) and Shishuo et al (WO 2011035689 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Lane discloses coated separator or a coated porous membrane comprising a separator; and at least one coating that comprises an adhesion agent and inorganic and/or organic heat resistant particles [Abstract; paragraph 0009-0010, 0044, 0046-0047, 0066-0067]. Lane remains silent that the adhesion agent is a dry adhesion agent. However, it is known in the art to utilize PVDF-HFP (dry adhesion agent) as a coating on the separator as taught by Park [paragraph 0058]. It is also known in the art to utilize (meth)acrylic acid ester-based polymer ( dry adhesion agent) having a glass transition temperature of about 10° C. to about 60° C as a coating on the separator as taught by Kim [Abstract; paragraph 0036-0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail the teachings of utilizing dry adhesion agent ( PVDF-HFP/(meth)acrylic acid ester-based polymer) in order to cause the separator to stick to itself when the separator is rolled up, thus making it very difficult or impossible to wind the battery assembly including the separator and electrodes in a roll form.
Further, Shishuo teaches a separator comprising a polymer coating on a porous substrate wherein the polymer coating comprises an inorganic particles in the amount of 0.5% to 45% based on the total amount of the polymer coating in order to further improve the processability and further enhance the interfacial bonding strength between the polymer and the inorganic particles [pages 6, 8]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 30 and 42, Lane teaches that the coating comprises an adhesion agent, a shutdown agent and a binder [Abstract, paragraph 0010, 0029-0030, 0052, 0060-0062].
Regarding claim 56, Lane teaches that the coating the coating can be two-sided [Fig. 4; paragraph 0059, 0088]. Since it is not mentioned to be different coating, therefore, the coatings on both sides are same.
Regarding claim 64, Lane teaches that the coating is a water based coating [paragraph 0010, 0040; claims 1, 19-20].
Regarding claim 65, Lane teaches that the inorganic/organic heat resistant particles have a particle size of 0.01-5 micrometer (5nm-5000nm) [paragraph 0044-0049].
Regarding claim 79, Lane teaches that the coating is a water based coating [paragraph 0010, 0040; claims 1, 19-20].
8. Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al (US 20200335759 A1) (WO 2018017944 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20160049628 A1), Park et al (US 20150104696 A1) and Shishuo et al (WO 2011035689 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Zhang et al (US 20110223486 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Lane teaches that the separator is a dry-process consisting of polypropylene [paragraph 0100-0110, 0129]. Lane remains silent that the separator is a monolayer; however, it is known in the art is produced in dry-process monolayer as taught by Zhang [0007, 0020, 0029, 0031, 0033]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claim(s) 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al (US 20200335759 A1) (WO 2018017944 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20160049628 A1), Park et al (US 20150104696 A1) and Shishuo et al (WO 2011035689 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al (US 20110033743 A1).
Regarding claim 80, Lane does not teach the amount of heat resistant particles present in the coating. However, Lee teaches a battery separator comprising a coating layer having heat resistant/inorganic particles. Lee further teaches that the concentration of the organic or inorganic particle in the coating solution is preferably 1 to 50 wt %, more preferably, 2 to 20 wt %. If the concentration of the organic or inorganic particle is too low, it is difficult to achieve its purposes of increase in the impregnation rate of the liquid electrolytes with respect to the separator, increase in the physical strength of the coating layer, increase in the porosity of the coating layer, increase in the heat resistance of the separator, and prevention of the electrical short by securing a space between electrodes upon an abnormal condition of the battery. If the concentration of the organic or inorganic particle is too high, the bonding force with the polyolefin microporous film is deteriorated due to relative reduction of the concentration of the heat-resistant polymer, and thus it is difficult to secure the heat resistance of the separator [paragraph 0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail the teachings of concentration of heat resistant particles in order to increase the impregnation rate of the liquid electrolytes with respect to the separator, increase in the physical strength of the coating layer, increase in the porosity of the coating layer, increase in the heat resistance of the separator, and prevention of the electrical short by securing a space between electrodes upon an abnormal condition of the battery.
10. Claim(s) 75 and 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al (US 20200335759 A1) (WO 2018017944 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20160049628 A1), Park et al (US 20150104696 A1) and Shishuo et al (WO 2011035689 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Schneider et al (US 6180281 B1).
Regarding claims 75 and 81, Lane teaches a composite comprising the coated separator as in claim 1 [paragraph 0010, 0121]. Lane remains silent that an additional coating of polymer or electrode material on the coated separator. However, Schneider teaches an electrode and separator composite comprising a separator and an electrode embedded in a polymer matrix. Application of an electrode slurry to a polymer coated separator and subsequent drying in a solvent enriched atmosphere forms a secondary battery structure characterized by a seamless composite structure. Schneider further teaches that in the preferred process of manufacturing the electrode and separator composite, a fibrous polymer mat is saturated, preferably vacuum saturated, with a polymer solution, the polymer solution is allowed to cure forming a polymer coated separator, an electrode slurry is applied to the polymer coated separator, and the slurry is allowed to cure in a solvent vapor enriched atmosphere or in a vapor retention means [Abstract; column 3, line 34-40]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, Milton I Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights