DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received 05/12/2026, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 have been withdrawn from the previous office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the barrier layer includes a complexing agent in a particular state” which should be amended to read “the barrier layer includes a complexing agent in a particulate state” in order to correct a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20170365883A1, hereafter Luski, in view of Published Application US20050014060A1, hereafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Luski discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0003], Li ion battery) comprising
a positive electrode ([0003] positive electrode),
a negative electrode ([0003] negative electrode),
a separator ([0003] nanoporous or microporous polymer separator) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0003] separator operatively disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode), and
a barrier layer ([0045] multiple discrete layers of similar or dissimilar polyolefins and/or polymers for the membrane 26 may be assembled into the membrane 26, making at least one separator layer and at least one barrier layer) interposed between the positive electrode and the separator (layer of separator closest to positive electrode),
wherein the barrier layer includes a complexing agent ([0003] chelating agents are operatively disposed within the pores of the nanoporous or microporous membrane) in a particulate state ([0137] finely ground polymeric chelating Li-salt added to copolymer blend) and a resin material ([0044] polymer).
Luski further discloses the complexing agent may be formed in the separator pores, on the separator surface, on an electrode surface, and is present as a functional group grafted onto a polymer backbone ([0003]).
Luski is silent on wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group.
In the analogous art of electrochemical cells, Suzuki discloses wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group ([0084] 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol based complexing agent). Suzuki further discloses the complexing agent is present as a polymerizable functional group bonded to the porous surface ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Luski to use a known complexing agent such as 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol as disclosed by Suzuki, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Luski is silent on wherein a ratio of a cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material is 15% or more and less than 100%.
The examiner notes that the complexing agent’s effectiveness and capacity are necessarily proportional to the amount of the complexing agent within the space in which it is disposed. Luski discloses in [0035] that the chelating agent effectively traps the unwanted metal cations without affecting the movement of lithium ions across the nanoporous or microporous separator. The chelating agent has a finite amount of complexing sites available for trapping cations, and thus the ratio of chelating agent present in the barrier layer to the rest of the barrier layer relates directly to the amount of cations that are able to be complexed by the chelating agent. In other words, more cations may be complexed if more of the complexing agent is present.
As the complexing capacity of the complexing agent is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of the cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material, with the complexing capacity of the complexing agent increasing as the ratio of the cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material is increased, the ratio of the cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of the cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of the cross sectional area of the complexing agent relative to a total cross sectional area of the complexing agent and the resin material in the invention of Luski to obtain the desired complexing capacity of the complexing agent (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Suzuki further discloses wherein the triazine derivative is 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol ([0084] 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol based complexing agent).
Regarding claim 7, Luski further discloses wherein the resin material is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylic resin ([0044]), fluorine resin ([0044]), polyamide resin ([0044]), and polyimide resin ([0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Luski discloses a positive electrode ([0003] positive electrode) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0003], Li ion battery) comprising:
an electrode ([0003] positive electrode) having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface,
a barrier layer ([0003] nanoporous or microporous polymer separator) supported on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the positive electrode ([0003] separator operatively disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode),
the positive electrode includes an electrode active material layer and a current collector supporting the electrode active material layer ([0024] positive electrode is supported by its current collector; [0024] positive electrode includes lithium based active material),
the barrier layer is provided at least on a surface of the electrode active material layer at an opposite side of the current collector side (Fig 4), and
the barrier layer includes a complexing agent ([0003] chelating agents are operatively disposed within the pores of the nanoporous or microporous membrane) in a particulate state ([0137] finely ground polymeric chelating Li-salt added to copolymer blend) and a resin material ([0044] polymer).
Luski further discloses the complexing agent may be formed in the separator pores, on the separator surface, on an electrode surface, and is present as a functional group grafted onto a polymer backbone ([0003]).
Luski is silent on wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group.
In the analogous art of electrochemical cells, Suzuki discloses wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group ([0084] 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol based complexing agent). Suzuki further discloses the complexing agent is present as a polymerizable functional group bonded to the porous surface ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Luski to use a known complexing agent such as 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol as disclosed by Suzuki, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, Luski further discloses wherein the resin material is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylic resin ([0044]), fluorine resin ([0044]), polyamide resin ([0044]), and polyimide resin ([0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Luski discloses a separator ([0003] nanoporous or microporous separator) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0003], Li ion battery) comprising
a separator having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface ([0003] nanoporous or microporous polymer separator, Fig 4 two opposing surfaces), and
a barrier layer supported on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the separator ([0045] multiple discrete layers of similar or dissimilar polyolefins and/or polymers for the membrane 26 may be assembled into the membrane 26, making at least one separator layer and at least one barrier layer),
wherein the barrier layer includes a complexing agent ([0003] chelating agents are operatively disposed within the pores of the nanoporous or microporous membrane) in a particulate state ([0137] finely ground polymeric chelating Li-salt added to copolymer blend) and a resin material ([0044] polymer).
Luski further discloses the complexing agent may be formed in the separator pores, on the separator surface, on an electrode surface, and is present as a functional group grafted onto a polymer backbone ([0003]).
Luski is silent on wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group.
In the analogous art of electrochemical cells, Suzuki discloses wherein the complexing agent is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative having at least one thiol group ([0084] 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol based complexing agent). Suzuki further discloses the complexing agent is present as a polymerizable functional group bonded to the porous surface ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Luski to use a known complexing agent such as 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol as disclosed by Suzuki, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 21, Luski further discloses wherein the resin material is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylic resin ([0044]), fluorine resin ([0044]), polyamide resin ([0044]), and polyimide resin ([0044]).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20170365883A1, hereafter Luski, in view of Published Application US20050014060A1, hereafter Suzuki, as stated above for claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Published Application US20150188183A1, hereafter Nagai.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Luski is silent on wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 40 µm or less.
In the analogous art of secondary battery separators, Nagai discloses wherein the barrier layer of the separator has a thickness of 1-12 µm ([0139] 1-12 µm barrier layer to improve a short-circuit prevention effect and retention of the non-aqueous electrolyte), which lies inside the claimed range of 1-40 µm. Nagai further discloses that in the cases where the barrier layer is provided on the separator, it is easy to adjust the strength and extensibility of the separator within suitable ranges ([0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a barrier layer thickness of 1-12 µm as disclosed by Nagai in order to improve a short circuit prevention effect and retention of the non-aqueous electrolyte, as suggested by Nagai ([0139]), and since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 on page 10 of applicant’s remarks that in contrast to Luski, the present invention employs the claimed configuration with the barrier layer containing the complexing agent and resin material so that impurity metal ions eluted from the positive electrode side and moving toward the negative electrode side necessarily pass through the barrier layer, the examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., impurity metal ions eluted from the positive electrode side and moving toward the negative electrode side necessarily pass through the barrier layer, and that the invention is a design by which complexation is promoted with high probability through structural control of the mandatory passage of the metal ions through the barrier layer) 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). In this case, the claim recites only: “the barrier layer includes a complexing agent in a particular (particulate) state and a resin material”.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that Suzuki does not describe controlling the migration paths and migration distance of impurity metal ions moving in the liquid electrolyte, the examiner notes 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). In this case, the stated limitation is not claimed, as stated above, and further, as stated in the rejection, Suzuki was relied upon only to establish that the 1,3,4-triazine derivative was a known complexing agent in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 on page 13 of applicant’s remarks that neither Suzuki nor Luski suggests the structural constraints of the complexing agent being in a particulate state, the examiner disagrees, and notes, as stated in the rejection, that Luski discloses this feature ([0137] finely ground polymeric chelating Li-salt added to copolymer blend).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 21 on pages 17-18 of applicant’s remarks that the cross-sectional area of the complexing agent is not a result-effective variable, the examiner disagrees, and notes, as stated in the rejection, that the complexing agent’s effectiveness and capacity are necessarily proportional to the amount of the complexing agent within the space in which it is disposed. Luski discloses in [0035] that the chelating agent effectively traps the unwanted metal cations without affecting the movement of lithium ions across the nanoporous or microporous separator. The chelating agent has a finite amount of complexing sites available for trapping cations, and thus the ratio of chelating agent present in the barrier layer to the rest of the barrier layer relates directly to the amount of cations that are able to be complexed by the chelating agent. In other words, more cations may be complexed if more of the complexing agent is present.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 21 on page 18 of applicant’s remarks that the results of Table 1 indicate that the effects are exhibited only when a complexing agent and a resin material are used in combination and the predetermined cross-sectional area ratio are met, rather than the same effects being obtained when the amount of the complexing agent is merely increased or decreased, the examiner disagrees. The data do not demonstrate unexpected results. The comparative examples are showing that having no complexing agent in the barrier layer will show no complexing effect (comparative examples 1 and 3-5), or having a very thin layer with 100% complexing agent (comparative example 2) present also performs poorly, compared to the wide variety of the examples demonstrating much more complexing agent present in a thicker barrier layer (examples 1-21).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 on page 22 of applicant’s remarks that even if the 1,3,5-triazine derivative of Suzuki could be applied to Luski, a skilled person could not arrive at the feature of claim 2 referring to the thickness of the barrier layer, the examiner notes 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). In this case, as stated in the rejection, the examiner applied the Nagai reference to modified Luski as well as result-effective variable reasoning to meet the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 on page 24 of applicant’s remarks that Nagai is different from the present invention in problem to be solved and technical background, and therefore the examiner’s assertion about Nagai would be beside the point, the examiner disagrees, and notes it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as stated in the rejection, Nagai is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, which is the art of secondary battery separators.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 on page 25 of applicant’s remarks that that the results of Table 1 indicate that the effects are exhibited only when a complexing agent and a resin material are used in combination and the predetermined thickness is met, rather than the same effects being obtained when the thickness of the barrier layer is merely increased or decreased, the examiner disagrees. As stated above, the data do not demonstrate unexpected results. The comparative examples are showing that having no complexing agent in the barrier layer will show no complexing effect (comparative examples 1 and 3-5), or having a very thin layer with 100% complexing agent (comparative example 2) present also performs poorly, compared to the wide variety of the examples demonstrating much more complexing agent present in a thicker barrier layer (examples 1-21).
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights