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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 were rejected in the Office Action mailed on 06/03/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, canceled claims 2-3 and 21, added claims 22-24. Claim 8 was previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-20 and 22-24 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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, 5-7, 15-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0309108) and further, in view of Honda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0047962).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a method for producing a battery cell component (i.e., separator) (100) (paragraph [0028]-[0029], [0077]), the method comprising:
forming a slurry comprising a ceramic material (i.e., inorganic particles such as Al2O3 also known as alumina), a binder (i.e., binder resin) and an ionic dispersant (i.e., dispersed in a suitable solvent such as water) (paragraph [0059], [0078]), wherein the ceramic material comprises greater than 50% of the slurry (i.e., 50 and 99 wt%) (paragraph [0060]); and
applying the slurry to a polymeric material (i.e., porous polymer film) (paragraph [0057]) to form a two-layer separator (paragraph [0058]), wherein the slurry is applied to a thickness of 1-50 µm (paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
Shin teaches an adhesive material is formed on at least one surface of the two-layer separator (paragraph [0028]-[0029]) (see figure 1). Further, Shin teaches the adhesive material ensure bonding of the separator and the electrode (paragraph [0028]) and comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0064]).
Shin does not teach the specifics of depositing the adhesive material over the two-layer separator at a loading of less than or about 5 g/m2.
Honda, directed to a separator, teaches depositing an adhesive material over the separator at a loading of 0.5 g/m2 to 2.0 g/m2 (paragraph [0142]). Honda teaches when the deposition is 0.5 g/m2 or more, adhesion between the separator and the electrode is favorable and loading characteristics of the battery is excellent. On the other hand, when the deposition is 2.0 g/m2 or less, the ion permeability of the separator and load characteristics of the battery are excellent (paragraph [0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin and deposit the adhesive material in the separator at a loading of 0.5 g/m2 to 2.0 g/m2 as taught by Honda, in order for the adhesion be favorable and increase ion permeability of the separator as well as load characteristics of the battery.
It is noted that Shin differ in the exact same thickness range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Shin overlap the instant claimed and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts 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 5, Shin teaches the ceramic material is selected from aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide (paragraph 0062]).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Shin teaches the method of producing a battery cell as described above in claim 1. Shin does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the ceramic material is characterized by an HF gas absorption rate of at least about 2 mg HF/g of the ceramic material however, since the ceramic material of Shin is identical to the one claimed, the same absorption properties and characteristics would be expected. Particularly, physical absorption of gas molecules in porous ceramic materials is known to be characterized by the porosity of the material and Shin teaches the slurry with the ceramic material (i.e., inorganic particles) being porous (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Shin teaches a first adhesion layer having a thickness of 0.1-2 µm and a second adhesion layer being less than 50% of the thickness of the first layer (paragraph [0047]. Further, Shin teaches a porous substrate having a thickness of 5-50 µm (paragraph [0057] and a porous coating layer having a thickness of 1-50 µm (paragraph [0058]). The adhesion layers, the porous substrate and the porous coating layer form the two-layer separator.
It is noted that Shin differ in the exact same thickness range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Shin overlap the instant claimed and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts 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 15, Shin teaches applying a first portion (120a) of the slurry to a first side of the polymeric material (paragraph [0028]) (see figure 1) and a second portion (120c) of the slurry to a second side of the polymeric material (paragraph [0028]) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 16-18, Shin teaches the binder having a glass transition temperature of -100°C to 200°C (paragraph [0063]) which includes the claimed temperature.
It is noted that Shin differ in the exact same glass transition temperature range as recited in the instant claims however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Shin overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts 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 19, Shin teaches the binder comprises a polyimide material (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 20, Shin teaches the method as described above in claim 1.
Shin does not explicitly articulate winding the two-layer separator into a roll. However, Shin teaches the separator for secondary batteries with applications in electronic devices like mobile phones, laptops, bikes, hybrid vehicles (paragraph [0002]). Such batteries are known to have different designs such as cylindrical or pouch cells. Battery components in cylindrical or pouch cells are typically wound into rolls and this is known to maximize energy density and improve manufacturing efficiency. As such, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to consider winding the two electrode separator into a roll as such is known for example in cylindrical cells having applications for batteries used in mobile phones, laptops, bikes, hybrid vehicles.
Claim(s) 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0309108) and Honda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0047962), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uemura (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0260207).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Shin teaches the method of forming a battery cell component as described above in claim 1 including the slurry.
Shin does not teach the slurry characterized by a viscosity of below about 200cp.
Uemura, also directed to a battery cell component (i.e., separator) (title, abstract), teaches that from the viewpoint of obtaining excellent coating properties, the viscosity of a composition for a separator is 1-10,000 cp (i.e., 1-10,000 mPa*s) (paragraph 0131]). As described above in claim 1, Shin teaches applying or coating the polymeric material with the slurry.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a viscosity of 1-10,000 cp in the slurry as suggested by Uemera in order to obtain excellent coating properties when applying the slurry in the polymeric material.
It is noted that Uemura differ in the exact same viscosity range as recited in the instant claims however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Uemura overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts 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).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0309108) and Honda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0047962), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0245182).
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches the method for producing a battery cell component as described above in claim 1.
Shin does not teach the ceramic particles characterized by a specific surface area of at least about 100 m2/g.
Liao, directed to ceramic-polymer composite (abstract), teaches a slurry comprising a ceramic material, a binder and an ionic dispersant (i.e., dispersant) (paragraph [0014], [0024]). Further, Liao teaches the ceramic material having a specific surface area of 0.8-200 m2/g (paragraph [0015]). Liao teaches the ceramic material reduce the degree of heat shrinkage of the separator and improve the mechanical strength of the separator (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic material of Shin to be characterized by a surface area of 0.8-200 m2/g as suggested by Liao with a reasonable expectation of success for the ceramic material to improve the mechanical strength of the separator.
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches the porous coating layer which as described above, is formed by the slurry when applied to the polymer material (i.e., porous substrate) (paragraph [0059]), includes a mixture of the ceramic material (i.e., inorganic particles) and the binder (paragraph [0007]). The binder includes a polymer resin (paragraph [0064]). As such, it is interpreted that the mixture would have polymer chains among the ceramic particles.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0309108) and Honda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0047962), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0243952) and Hucker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0308887).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Shin teaches the method for producing a battery cell component as described above in claim 1 including the slurry comprising a ceramic material, a binder and an ionic dispersant (paragraph [0059]).
Shin does not teach the slurry comprising a microencapsulated material comprising a first material contained within a second material.
Ka, directed to a separator (abstract), teaches a microencapsulating material comprising a ceramic material (i.e., inorganic particles) and a binder polymer (paragraph [0014]). Ka teaches the microencapsulated material having a first material contained within a second material (i.e., core, shell layer, spacer layer) (paragraph [0025], [0030]). Further, Ka teaches the microencapsulated material provides thermal stability to the battery (paragraph [0010]).
Shin provides the guidance of the slurry having a ceramic material and a binder and such could be applied on at least one surface of the polymeric material (i.e., porous coating layer formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate) (paragraph [0007]). Ka teaches a microencapsulated material with a ceramic material and a binder, both for applications to a separator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include a ceramic material and a binder as a microencapsulated material comprising a first material contained within a second material as suggested by Ka with a reasonably expectation of success for the battery to have increased thermal stability.
Shin does not teach the slurry having a porogen.
Hucker, directed to rechargeable batteries (abstract), teaches that a porogen is utilized in a separator to provide a porous structure (paragraph [0005]) and enhance performance of the battery (paragraph [0011]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin and add a porogen to the slurry in order to increase porosity and enhance battery performance.
Regarding claim 13, Shin teaches the micro encapsulated material including a first material contained within a second material as described above in claim 11. Shin does not explicitly articulate the second material characterized by a breakdown temperature than is greater than or about 100°C. However, Ka teaches a breakdown temperature of the second material of 70-100°C (i.e., the shell layer ruptures) (paragraph [0012]).
It is noted that Ka differ in the exact same temperature range as recited in the instant claims however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Ka overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 11/03/2025 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). The new limitations have been fully addressed above in view of Honda.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iwai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0179997). Iwai teaches applying and adhesive at a loading of 0.5-1.5 g/m2 (paragraph [0061]).
Honda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0236323). Honda teaches applying an adhesive at a loading of 6.0g/m2 (paragraph [0109]).
Correspondence
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723