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 Amendments
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on July 10, 2026 have been entered and considered. Claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 16 are withdrawn, claim 12 is amended and claims 1 – 18 are pending. In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 12, the rejection over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 7,883,799) is withdrawn. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 – 13 and 17 – 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 12 – 13 and 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0111025) in view of Seo et al. (US 7,883,799).
As to claim 12, Lee et al. is directed to an organic/inorganic composite porous separator (Abstract) comprising: (a) a polyolefin-based separator substrate; and (b) an active layer formed by coating at least one region selected from the group consisting of a surface of the substrate and a part of pores present in the substrate with a mixture of inorganic particles and a binder polymer, wherein the inorganic particles in the active layer are interconnected among themselves and are fixed by the binder polymer, and interstitial volumes among the inorganic particles form a pore structure (Abstract). The Examiner equates the polyolefin-based substrate to Applicant’s “porous polymer substrate” and the active coating layer to Applicant’ “porous coating layer”.
As to claims 12, 17 and 18, Lee et al. notes that it is possible to form the pore structure of the active layer in addition to the pores present in the separator substrate by controlling the size of inorganic particles, content of inorganic particles and the mixing ratio of inorganic particles and binder polymer. Lee et al. additionally notes it possible to control the pore size as well as the porosity [0041]. Lee et al. further notes the pore size and porosity of the organic/inorganic composite porous separator mainly depend on the size of inorganic particles and are important factors in . the size and porosity of the pores are controlling the ion conductivity of the organic/inorganic composite porous separator [0053]. In general, Lee et al. focuses on increasing ionic conductivity by selecting inorganic particles with high ionic conductivity [0035], controlling the porosity and pore size, optimizing the particle diameter of the inorganic particles and the mixing ratio of the inorganic particles with binder polymer compared to a conventional separator substrate [0032].
It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a porous separator with a porous coating layer comprising macro pores larger than the interstitial volume, specifically an average diameter of the macro pores is more than 1.0 times and not more than 5.0 times larger than the interstitial volume to tailor the mechanical properties of the resulting separator as required by claim 18. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a porous separator with a porous coating layer with an ionic conductivity of 9.0 X 10-4 S/cm to 1.0 X 10-4 S/cm as required by claim 12 or 5.17 X 10-4 S/cm to 1.0 X 10-4 S/cm as required by claim 17 by tailoring the porosity, inorganic particle type and size and mixing ratios of the particles and binders with the predictable result of optimizing the ionic conductivity of the resulting battery separator. The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate unexpected results.
Lee et al. teaches the use of polymer binders with particular qualities suitable for a high conductivity porous separator but does not limit the type of binder used [0044-0047] but fail to teach that the binder comprises a fluorine-based binder polymer.
Seo et al. teach a composite porous separator, which comprises: (a) a porous substrate having pores and (b) an organic/inorganic composite layer formed by coating at least one region selected from the group consisting of a surface of the substrate and a part of pores present in the substrate with a mixture of inorganic porous particles and a binder polymer, wherein the inorganic porous particles have a plurality of macropores with a diameter of 50 nm or greater in the particle itself thereby form a pore structure. Seo et al. teach the inorganic porous particles in the organic/inorganic composite layer are interconnected among themselves and are fixed by the binder polymer, and interstitial volumes among the inorganic porous particles form a pore structure. Seo et al. teach that the binder polymer, or Applicant's "fluorine-based binder polymer",
can comprise polymers such as polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene or polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene (column 8, lines 1 - 15) and Example 1 demonstrates the use of PVdF-CTFE polymer (polyvinylidene fluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer) as the binder polymer (column 11 - lines 60 - 68 and column 12, lines 1 - 15). Example 1 is shown to have an ion conductivity of 4.8 X 10-4 S/cm (column 15, lines 1 - 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene or polyvinylidene fluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer as taught by Seo et al. as the binder of Lee et al. motivated by the desire to use a suitable binder for a high conductivity porous separator.
As to claim 13, the limitation of “the macro pores are formed as the fluorine-based binder polymer is dissolved in an electrolytic solution” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Lee et al. discloses the same structure as recited above.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached on (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
