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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, 9-10, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR2014-0070199A), in view of Kim et al. (KR2001-0037100A).
As to claim 1, Yu discloses a lithium secondary battery which comprises a first electrode and a second electrode having a polarity opposite to each other, and a solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane (porous separator) interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode [0025],
wherein the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane comprises a non-woven web substrate and a porous layer formed on at least one surface of the non-woven web substrate [0013],
and the non-woven web substrate has a microporous structure formed by a microstructure of polymer fibrils (polymer microfibers, [0015]),
wherein in the porous layer, solid polymer particles are packed and are in contact with one another (fig. 2), a pore structure is formed between the solid polymer particles (fig. 2 [0022]), and a liquid electrolyte surrounds portions where the solid polymer particles are in contact with one another; or surfaces of the solid polymer particles (Electrolyte injection into the battery would surround the non-woven web substrate and porous layer [0046] fig. 2),
and solid polymer particles are dispersed in the microporous structure (fig. 1 [0039]) or a liquid electrolyte is incorporated into the microporous structure (electrolyte injection [0046]);
Yu does not explicitly disclose a content of the liquid electrolyte is 50-70 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total weight of the solid polymer particles and the liquid electrolyte,
In the same field of endeavor Kim discloses a secondary battery [0031] and teaches ( the ratio of the sum of the crosslinked polymer particles and the polymer binder material and the sum of the ionic salt and the electrolyte is not particularly limited, but is preferably in the range of 1: 2-10, which is the amount of the ionic salt and the electrolyte [0219-0221] Where 1:2 provides 50% which overlaps the claimed range, and it should be note 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
and the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane has an ion conductivity of
2 x 10-3 S/cm. [Kim, 298-299] It should be note 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 3, Yu discloses the polymer fibrils comprise any one selected from the group consisting of polyolefin, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0019], polyethylene naphthalene (PEN), polyester, nylon, polyimide, polybenzoxazole, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyarylene ether sulfone, polyether ether ketone and copolymers thereof, or a mixture of two or more selected therefrom.
As to claim 4, Yu discloses the solid polymer particle is an engineering plastic resin. (the high hardness polymer particles may be particles prepared from one or two or more kinds of mixtures selected from the group consisting of the above heat resistant polymers [0021]…heat resistant polymer representative samples are engineering plastics (EP), such as polyester resins, and polyamides (PA). ) Resins, polyimide (PI) -based resins, fluorine resins, and the like. [0018])
As to claim 5, Yu discloses the solid polymer particle comprises any one selected from polyphenylene oxide, polyetherether ketone, polyimide, polyamideimide, liquid crystal polymer, polyether imide, polysulfone, polyarylate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate [0021], polyoxymethylene, polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyethylene and polymethyl methacrylate, or two or more selected therefrom.
As to claim 9, modified Yu discloses porous nonwoven substrate made of a high heat resistant polymer; And a porous coating layer including a high hardness polymer particle [0013] (solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane)…porous membrane has a thickness of 20 µm [0026]…the nonwoven substrate has a thickness of 9-30 µm [0031] and taken together provide a solid-liquid hybrid thickness of 29 to 50 µm). It should be note 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 10, Yu discloses a lithium ion secondary battery [0025] or a solid-state battery.
As to claim 12, Yu discloses The lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the porous layer is directly coated and formed independently on each of the first electrode and the second electrode. (a porous coating layer which is coated on at least one side of the porous non-woven fabric basic material [Abstract]).
Claim 12 is/are considered product-by-process claim “porous layer is directly coated”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
As to claim 21, Yu discloses the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane is free of a binder polymer. [Abstract], [0006], [0010], and [0023] no binder polymer or very low content.
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR2014-0070199A), in view of Kim et al. (KR2001-0037100A), and in further view of Kamiyama et al. (JP2019-197702A)
As to claim 2, Yu discloses the polymer fibrils have an average diameter in a range of 0.005_-to_5 m, (0.5 to about 10 µm, [Yu,0015]) and the non-woven web substrate has pores having a diameter in a range of 0.05_-to 30 µm (0.1 to 70 µm [Yu, 0015]). Yu does not explicitly disclose a porosity of 50_-to_80%. However Kamiyama discloses secondary battery (Examples 1 to 3, initial charge/discharge capacity in battery performance [0362]) and teaches (The porosity of the nonwoven fabric is preferably 40 to 60%. [0268]) It should be note 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Kamiyama teaches the high void structure of the nonwoven fabric itself allows smooth ion movement, and is a factor for achieving charge / discharge efficiency and long life. [0268-0270]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Yu with the porosity of Kamiyama to provide smooth ion movement and achieve charge/discharge efficiency and long life
As to claim 6, modified Yu discloses the non- woven web substrate has a thickness in a range of 5_-to_100 µm ( 9-30 µm [0031], and the porous structural layer has a thickness in a range of 5_-to_500 µm (10-20 µm, [Kamiyama, 0289-0290]).
Claim(s) 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR2014-0070199A), in view of Kim et al. (KR2001-0037100A), and in further view of Kondo et al. (US2008/0052900A1)
As to claim 7, Yu discloses, (porous nonwoven substrate made of a high heat resistant polymer; And a porous coating layer including a high hardness polymer particle [0013] (solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane)…porous membrane has a thickness of 20 µm [0026]…the nonwoven substrate has a thickness of 9-30 µm [0031] and taken together provide a solid-liquid hybrid thickness of 29 to 50 µm). It should be note 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Yu does not explicitly teach the first electrode and the second electrode comprise a solid electrolyte, in the same field of endeavor Kondo discloses a secondary battery [Abstract] and further teaches, (Seeing that the cathode 3 and the anode 4 have the same configuration in the present embodiment [0144]… By using the mixture of the electrode active material and the solid electrolyte material as the electrode material 32, it becomes possible to increase the ion-conducting bonding interface between particles of the electrode active material and the electrolyte particles which constitute the cathode 3 (electrode), and also to increase the interface bonding force (adhesion) between the cathode 3 and the electrolyte layer 5. [0161]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Yu with the solid electrolyte of Kondo to increase the ion-conducting bond and adhesion between the cathode and electrolyte.
As to claim 11, modified Yu discloses each of the first electrode and the second electrode independently comprises or does not comprise a solid electrolyte. (The mixing of the active material with the solid electrolyte for both the respective cathode and anode [Kondo, 0161] would provide the first and the second electrode independently with solid electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 8-9 , Yu and Kim fail to disclose the same structure of the solid -liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane.
Applicant argues Yu fails to teach that solid polymer particles are dispersed in the microporous structure of the non-woven web substrate layer itself.
The office respectfully disagrees as Yu discloses nonwoven substrate of microfibers having pores with pore sizes in the micron’s [0015] or a microporous structure. Yu teaches the nonwoven substrate is impregnate with high-hardness polymer particles [0039] thereby providing solid polymer particles are dispersed in the microporous structure of the non-woven web substrate layer
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., incorporation of electrolyte as a structural feature) ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues Yu's electrolyte injection occurs during the battery manufacturing process and is applied to the final product, and this general electrolyte injection step does not teach or suggest that a liquid electrolyte is incorporated into the microporous structure of the non- woven web substrate layer as a structural feature of the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane itself.
The office respectfully disagrees as Yu discloses” the electrolyte injection may be performed at an appropriate stage in the battery manufacturing process, depending on the manufacturing process and the required physical properties of the final product. That is, it may be applied before the battery assembly or at the end of battery assembly.” [0046] Where the electrolyte injection would surround portions of the polymer particles as clamed, and thereby provide a structure.
Applicant argues Kim’s polymer electrolyte is fundamentally different from the claimed structure. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, page 9-10 , the combination of Yu and Kim fails to teach the ion conductivity range of 1x10-5 to 1x10-1 S/cm for the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane as a whole.
In response to applicant's argument that Kim’s system is functionally different from the claimed solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues Yu's porous separator is a separator for a secondary battery, not a solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane. Yu fails to disclose any ion conductivity for its porous separator structure. The office respectfully disagrees as exemplified in page 35 lines 1-2 of the instant specification, where the solid-liquid hybrid electrolyte membrane is utilized as a separator, as in Yu and elimination or limiting of binder polymer which may interfere with ion transfer [Yu, 0023]. Yu teaching ion conductivity may be affected by binder polymer, and in combination with Kim the claimed ion conductivity.
It would not have been obvious to combine Yu and Kim to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Yu and Kim are directed to separators for lithium batteries ([Yu,42-43], [Kim, 103-105, 108-109]), electrolyte solutions of ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) ([Yu,45],[Kim,134-135]), polyacrylonitrile-based polymers ([Yu,24], [Kim,125-127], and water, ether, amide solvents (water, tetrahydrofuran (THF), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) [Yu, 0034], [Kim,171-172]), and a
rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Further, Kim teaches the present invention is to improve ion conductivity [103-105] and it would be obvious to apply the teaching of Kim to the electrolyte weight percent to Yu improve ionic conductivity.
The examiner notes regarding the previously presented arguments the evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) does not change this analysis. In Soni, the Court declined to consider the Office’s argument that the evidence of nonobviousness was not commensurate in scope with the claim because it had not been raised by the examiner Id. 54 F.3d at 751, 34 USPQ2d at 1688.
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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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 T Martin can be reached at 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights