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’s arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-10 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhu1, and in further view of Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) and Kondo (US-201917431939-A)
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.
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) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu2, and in further view of Fuji (JP-2017183111-A) (see translation) and Kondo (US-201917431939-A) (publication US2021384551A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches a method for producing a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including:
a slurry production step of mixing a dissolution liquid obtained by dissolving a polymer compound (cellulose) in an ionic liquid (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract, regarding dissolution of cellulose in hydrophilic ionic liquids such as BMIMCl and AMIMCl), with nanoparticles (see e.g., Zhu; Section 3.3, regarding functional additives dissolve/dispersed in the ionic liquids such as nanoparticles before or after dissolution of the cellulose), to produce a slurry;
a gelling step of coating a surface of a substrate with the slurry to produce a coating film and replacing the ionic liquid with an organic poor solvent having a lower solubility of the polymer compound than the ionic liquid (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract, regarding the polymer compound, cellulose, can be regenerated from its ionic liquid solutions by addition of water, ethanol, or acetone; acetone, at least, may be considered as an organic poor solvent having a lower solubility of the polymer compound than the listed ionic liquids, wherein the regeneration process replaces the ionic liquid, see also Section 2);
The purpose of the separator “for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery” is non-limiting because it is the intended use (see MPEP 2111.02 II).
While Zhu discloses that functional additives may be included (see e.g., Zhu; Section 3.3), Zhu does not explicitly disclose the functional additive particles as solid electrolyte particles. However, Fuji discloses that solid electrolyte particles may be included in the solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., Fuji; [0024] regarding LATP particles).
Zhu also discloses that the regenerated cellulose polymer compound may be in the form of a film (see e.g., Section 2), wherein microwave heating may accelerate the dissolution process (see e.g., Section 2). Zhu does not explicitly disclose the specific order a drying step of drying the gelled film to obtain a composite film. However, Fuji discloses that the LATP solid electrolyte particles are formed into a thin layer using a support and coated onto a substrate with grease (see e.g., Fuji; [0024]), followed by a pressure and heating step (see e.g., Fuji; [0025]) which corresponds to the claimed drying step. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dissolution of cellulose with ionic liquids disclosed by Zhu with the providing a drying step after the gelling step as disclosed by Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a separator that is easy to process and having high ionic conductivity (see e.g., Fuji; [0008]).
Furthermore, Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the composite film is equal to or less than an average particle size of the solid electrolyte. However, Kondo discloses that a production method of a separator (lithium ion conductor 202) wherein a conductive powder, such as LLZ, is combined with an ionic liquid (see e.g., Kondo; [0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu by mixing the ionic liquid with a conductive powder as disclosed by Kondo in order to provide a separator with high lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., Kondo; [0012]).
Fuji may further modify Zhu and Kondo, as Fuji specifically discloses that the solid electrolyte particles have a diameter larger than the thickness of the substrate such that they are exposed on both sides of the separator (see e.g., Fuji; [0016]). Fuji emphasizes forming the thin single layer of solid electrolyte particles by removing excess particles and integrating directly with the substrate (see e.g., Fuji; [0008], [0024]) and shows how the particles have a diameter that extends past the thickness of the film (see e.g., Fuji; figs 1-2). Therefore, Fuji discloses a separator wherein the average particle size of the solid electrolyte is greater than a thickness of the composite film, which corresponds with the claimed composite film being less than an average particle size of the solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator of modified Zhu by having the average particle size of the solid electrolyte greater than a thickness of the composite film as disclosed by Fuji in order to provide separator strength and flexibility while preventing short circuits, and ensuring high ionic conductivity (see e.g. Fuji; [0013], [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. As explained above regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches the composite film including the polymer compound of cellulose. Furthermore, the modification of Zhu above regarding claim 6 as explains how Fuji provides a solid electrolyte particle in the composite film.
Zhu does not specifically teach a pore volume of the composite film is 0.06 cm3/g or less. However, Kondo discloses that the separator corresponding to the composite film may have a porosity of 30% or less, and more preferably 25% or less (see e.g., Kondo; [0056]), which overlaps with the claimed pore volume of 0.06 cm3/g or less. That is, because Kondo discloses the porosity may be 25% or less, the porosity of the composite film may be completely nonporous and overlaps with the claimed pore volume of 0.06 cm3/g or less. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator porosity of Zhu to have a porosity of 25% or less as disclosed by Kondo in order to sufficiently secure the lithium ion conduction path and improve lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., Kondo; [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. Zhu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the composite film is 0.2 μm or more and 10 μm or less. However, Fuji discloses wherein the separator may have a thickness of 10-100 μm (see e.g., Fuji; [0015]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2-10 μm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the separator of modified Zhu to a thickness of 10-100 μm as disclosed by Fuji in order to maintain separator strength while preventing short-circuiting and having a large capacity (see e.g., Fuji; [0015]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. As described above, Zhu also teaches the polymer compound being cellulose (see e.g., Zhu; Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhu teaches the method for producing a separator according to claim 6. Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is LATP. However, Fuji discloses wherein the solid electrolyte particles are LATP (see e.g., Fuji; [0024]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid electrolyte particles of Zhu to be LATP as disclosed by Fuji in order to provide a separator with low electrical resistivity (see e.g., Fuji; table 1, last column), and to use a particle that is easy to process and having high ionic conductivity (see e.g., Fuji; [0008]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327
2Shengdong Zhu et al., Green Chem., 2006,8, 325-327