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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and new claims 11 and 12 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190267596 to Guo et al.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, Guo et al. teaches a lithium-ion (secondary) battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (abstract; [0006]; [0025]; [0030-37]), wherein
the negative electrode is an electrode in which lithium metal deposits during charging and the lithium metal dissolves during discharging ([0036]),
the separator includes a porous substrate ([0025]) and an aramid layer (corresponding to the claimed second layer) and an inorganic layer (corresponding to the claimed first layer) disposed on both surfaces of the porous substrate ([0006-8]; [0028]; [0048]; [0077]), reading on the claimed structure having the first layer disposed on a first side of the substrate and the second layer disposed on a second side of the substrate,
the inorganic layer includes particles of, for example, lithium phosphate, per claims 1 and 2 ([0008]; [0010]; [0044]; [0045]), and
the aramid layer is composed of only a polymer or aromatic polyamide polymer per claims 1 and 9 ([0025]; [0042]; [0056]).
Although Guo et al. does not expressly teach an example including particles of phosphate containing lithium in the inorganic layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention by selecting lithium phosphate from the list suggested by Guo et al. ([0008]; [0010]; [0044]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Guo et al. teaches that the content of the particles of the phosphate in the inorganic layer is in the range of 90-97 mass% ([0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Guo et al. teaches that the aramid layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 20 μm ([0017]; [0029]) or 1 μm ([0056]) and the inorganic layer has a thickness of, e.g. 1 μm ([0077]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Guo et al. teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte contains lithium ions and anions, and the anions include at least anions of an oxalate complex or bis(oxalate)borate anions ([0020]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, as the inorganic layer and the aramid layer are disposed on both sides of the substrate, the claim is met such that a negative electrode side of the substrate has the inorganic layer (the claimed first layer), and a positive electrode side of the substrate has the aramid coating layer (the claimed second layer) ([0006-8]; [0028]; [0048]; [0069]; [0077]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the substrate is made of a polymer ([0025]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2014/0370358 to Hong et al. (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Guo et al. does not expressly teach that the average particle size of the particles of the phosphate is in the range of 0.1 pm to 1.0 pm.
Hong et al. also relates to a lithium secondary battery and teaches that the battery comprises a separator including an inorganic coating layer (abstract; [0015-17]) containing, e.g. lithium phosphate ([0020]), the average particle size of the phosphate particles in the range of 0.01 to 5 µm or 0.1 to 4 µm, or 0.2 to 0.8 µm ([0059]), falling within or overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used particles of the phosphate in the claimed range, because Hong et al. teaches that the given average particle size range of the inorganic particles maintains a proper porosity and prevents problems with deterioration in dispersibility of the inorganic particles, causing non-uniform coating, or battery performance degradation caused by the clogging of the pores of the porous substrate into which the inorganic particles penetrate when coating ([0059]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using particles of a known average size in a similar product. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). See MPEP 2144.05[R-5].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-12 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. Applicant amended claim 1 to require that the second layer is composed only of the named polymer. In response, the Examiner has applied a newly discovered reference to Guo, which satisfies the structure of the claimed separator having a first layer or inorganic coating layer on one side and a second layer or aramid layer on the other side of the substrate (see detailed rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725