DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/14/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-15 are now pending in this application.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramin (US20200407543A1) in view of Martinus (US-20140030608-A1) and Johan (EP2911221A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Ramin teaches method for manufacturing a lithium secondary battery [0001] [0091] [0093] comprising: (S10) providing a coated [0001] a separator [0001] comprising:
a porous polymer substrate [0087]
and a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate ([0087], wherein the coating layer increases the volume of space that a liquid electrolyte infiltrates, such that it too is porous);
(S20) thermally treating the coated separator ([0111] of Ramin teaches heat treating separator with a non-aqueous composition with organic particles);
(S30) placing an electrode assembly comprising the thermally treated separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode in a battery case and injecting an electrolyte solution into the battery case to manufacture a battery [0093],
wherein the porous coating layer comprises inorganic particles [0108] and a binder polymer (see Ramin claim 6),
wherein the binder polymer comprises a fluorine-based copolymer [0050],
the fluorine-based copolymer comprises a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) monomer and a comonomer that is copolymerizable with the vinylidene fluoride [0042],
wherein the comonomer content is 3% to 10% ([0042] which overlaps with the claimed range of 8% to 15%) by weight based on 100% by weight of the fluorine-based copolymer ([0042], wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.),
wherein the separator composition results in improved ionic conductivity (high ion conductivity is inventive goal per Ramin [0004, 0078]).
Ramin is silent to the specific ionic conductivity of the separator and fails to teach wetting the coated separator with an organic solvent and thermally treating the coated separator in the presence of the organic solvent.
Martinus teaches wetting ([0270], “immersed in acetone bath overnight”) the coated ([0270], “casted”) separator (film of [0270], see [0008], wherein the polymer films are used as a separator) with an organic solvent ([0270], acetone) and thermally treating the separator ([0270], “dried at 60C”) in the presence of the solvent ([0270], wherein drying acetone means it is necessarily present in the beginning) note that [0008] discloses the process of formatting the separator into a battery, such that Martinus also teaches S20 in the sequence of being formed before assembling the battery. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the thermal treatment step [0111] of Ramin such that it is first wet with organic solvent, in order to increase the resistance to deformation of the separator, as Martinus teaches that the method of example 25 [0270] shows a significant increase in stress at 2% offset.
Johan teaches wherein a separator has ionic conductivity of 4.75 X 10-4 S/cm or more [0082] such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to a separator made of similar materials would also have a similar ionic conductivity. Johan [0001, 0003, 0081-0082] teaches that the inventive separators beneficially protect electrodes from electrical short-circuit while achieving lithium-ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 2,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein (S20) the thermal treatment step is performed at a temperature from about 50 to 110 C [0095], which overlaps with claimed range of 75 °C or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 3,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S10) comprises coating a porous coating layer forming slurry on the porous polymer substrate [0087] and drying the porous coating layer, wherein the slurry comprises the inorganic particles and the binder polymer ([0092], “dried”).
Regarding claim 4,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the organic solvent comprises at least N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) [0108].
Regarding claim 5,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the step (S20) comprises thermally treating the separator to form a macro pore that is one to five times larger than an average diameter of an interstitial volume in the porous coating layer within the separator. However, Ramin uses the same materials and processing steps claimed, including a thermal treatment step (S20) (see rejection of claim 20 above) such that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that thermally treating the separator must also form a macro pore that is one to five times larger than an average diameter of an interstitial volume in the porous coating layer within the separator. Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01 and In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Regarding claim 6,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fluorine-based copolymer has crystallinity of 30% or less (abutting range of at least 30 wt%, [0042] – see MPEP 2144.05 I) or a melting temperature of 155°C or less (“or” is an optional limitation – Ramin [0073] does teach fluoropolymer melting point range abutting at 155°C, see also MPEP 2144.05 I),
Regarding claim 7,
Ramin in view of Martinus and Johan teaches the method for manufacturing the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: after the step (S30), (S40) activating the battery comprising the injected electrolyte solution ([0093], wherein, once the final battery is formed, comprising the injected electrolyte solution [0116], the battery is ready for use such that is meets the limitation “activated”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, have been fully considered and, due to the amendments, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martinus.
Applicant argues that wetting the coated separator with organic solvent is not taught. However, this is not persuasive, as Martinus teachings wetting with acetone, an organic solvent, before thermal treatment [0270].
Applicant argues that the 8 to 15 % weight of the fluorine based polymer amends outside the range taught by the primary reference. However, the teaching of 3-10 wt%, [0042] still overlaps with this range. Additionally, Table 1 does not recite 8% at one of the measured values, such that unexpected results around this number have not been demonstrated.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off allowable independent claims. However, the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGGETE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights