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 .
The Applicant’s amendments were received on 2/19/26. Claim 1 has been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoon et al. (KR20160127473) is withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yoon et al. (KR20160127473) in view of Jun et al. (KR100454716).
Regarding claim 1, the Yoon et al. reference a porous separator substrate comprising a polymer material (polymer-based substrate). A porous adhesive layer on a least one surface of the porous substrate. The porous adhesive layer comprises inorganic particles and a binder resin. The binder resin comprise a mixture of polymer acetate and an acrylic binder resin in the amount of 5:5 or 50wt% to 50wt% (“The acrylic copolymer is obtained by polymerizing the above-mentioned acrylic monomers and an acetate group-containing monomer such as vinyl acetate in a weight ratio 5:5”). The acrylic binder resin is said to have a low glass transition temperature of 30°C or less but is silent in specifying low glass transition is less than 0°C. However, the Jun et al. reference discloses acrylic binders with low transition glass of less than 0°C such as -20°C. The Jun et al. reference adds that the glass transition temperature is lower than this, the strength of the tape decreases rapidly, making the tape itself difficult to form. On the contrary, when the glass transition temperature is high, it is difficult to form the laminate due to the decrease in adhesiveness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In the event that the combination does not teach the glass transition temperature with sufficient specificity, it would have been indeed obvious, absent a showing of criticality and unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, the Yoon reference discloses the inorganic particles to comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of Al2O3
Regarding claim 5, the Yoon reference discloses the inorganic particles have a particle diameter of 100 nm to 1000 micron.
Regarding claim 6, the Yoon reference discloses the porous coating layer comprises the binder resin and the inorganic particles at a weight ratio of 50:50 to1:99 (80-90 wt% of inorganic particles).
Regarding claim 7, the Yoon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and incorporated herein. The Yoon et al. reference discloses the inorganic oxide (ceramic) porous layer is a dispersion but is silent in disclosing the porous coating further comprises a dispersing agent. However, the Jun et al. reference discloses a dispersant added to make two to three dimensional shape ceramic laminate for uniform properties with high packing density by inhibiting agglomeration of ceramic and evenly dispersing it (under Dispersant of Jun et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate dispersant with ceramic coatings disclosed by the Jun et al. reference for the ceramic coating layer disclosed by the Yoon et al. reference to prevent nonuniform agglomerate that can cause deterioration quality.
Regarding claim 8, the Yoon et al. reference discloses a method for manufacturing the separator for the electrochemical device as defined in claim 1 comprising forming a porous coating layer by coating a slurry (dispersion) for forming the porous coating layer comprising an acetone solvent, a binder resin and inorganic particles onto the at least one surface of the porous separator substrate (Example 1; Preparation Example). The Yoon et al. reference is silent in disclosing the solvent is an aqueous solvent comprising water, however, in another disclosure of Yoon, acetone and water are equivalent solvents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the invention since the Yoon et al. reference teaches that acetone and water can be used as a solvent. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 9, the Yoon et al. reference discloses the manufacturing of the separator with the porous coating layer to comprise a slurry (dispersion) with a solid content from 1-40 wt % (Example 1; Preparation Example).
Regarding claim 10, the Yoon reference discloses an electrode assembly for an electrochemical device comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode and a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, wherein the separator is the same as defined in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (KR20160127473) in view of Jun et al. (KR100454716) in further view of Lee et al. (WO2015076611).
Regarding claim 2, the Yoon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and incorporated herein. The Yoon et al. reference discloses that binder additions to acrylic copolymers may include PVDF and PVAc. The Yoon reference specifies that the molecule weight of PVDF is 300,000-1,700,000. The Lee reference discloses that adding binders to the acrylic copolymer that also include PVDF and PVAc. The Lee reference discloses if two or more binders are added, the molecular weight of each binder should be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the same MW of PVDF for PVAc to be added to the acrylic copolymers as disclosed by the Lee et al. reference for the acrylic copolymers that can comprise PVDF with molecular weight of 300,000-1,700,000 for PVAc as disclosed by the Yoon et al. reference. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
As a result, the modified Yoon reference discloses adding a PVAc binder with molecular weight of 300,000-1,700,000 but doesn’t specify 150,000-850,000. For the MW range that incorporates150,000-850,000, it is anticipated by the modified Yoon reference. For the range that is outside of the claimed range, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obviousness that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue, “
PNG
media_image1.png
132
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
80
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Yoon et al. reference discloses, “The acrylic copolymer is obtained by polymerizing the above-mentioned acrylic monomers and an acetate group-containing monomer such as vinyl acetate in a weight ratio 5:5” which mentions specifically the acrylic to vinyl acetate ratios. Even in arguendo, the Yoon does not explicit discloses the claimed invention, it would have been indeed obvious, absent a showing of criticality and unexpected results. In the Applicant’s specification, the comparative examples comprises the claimed ratio range.
The Applicants argue, “
PNG
media_image3.png
244
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”
However, it doesn’t appear that Tg of under 0°C is of any significance in the invention. The Applicant’s comparative examples comprises acrylic binder with Tg of under 0°C. Again, it would have been indeed obvious, absent a showing of criticality and unexpected results. In addition, the “expected results” aren’t claimed and therefore it appears the Applicants can also claim the comparative example with unwanted results.
The Applicants argue, “
PNG
media_image4.png
182
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”
However, the anticipatory rejection has been withdrawn and therefore, these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752