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 Status
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-21 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/28/2025 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 105529425 A) hereinafter "Hu" in view of Hyun et al. (US 10270073 B2) hereinafter "Hyun". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation of Hu.
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a composite separator comprising: (a) a porous substrate ([0012]; [0015]; [0031] diaphragm with good air permeability necessitates porosity); and (b) an inorganic composite layer that is formed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate ([0012]) and is formed using a slurry composition containing inorganic particles and a one- dimensional inorganic material ([0013]; [0015]; [0028]), wherein the inorganic composite layer comprises 60 to 99 wt% of the inorganic particles based on a total weight of the inorganic composite layer ([0054]-[0055] Example 11; [0057]-[0058] Example 22) and wherein the inorganic composite layer comprises 1 to 50 parts by weight of the one-dimensional inorganic material with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles ([0054]-[0055] Example 1; [0057]-[0058] Example 23). Hu teaches the use of a dispersant agent ([0044])
Hu does not teach a defoamer in the slurry composition.
However, Hyun teaches a porous substrate with an inorganic composite layer (column 6 lines 44-51; column 8 lines 29-37) comprising inorganic particles, binder, and additives (column 9 lines 11-22; column 12 Example 1) wherein the kind of the additives, such as defoamer, can be appropriately selected and used depending on a desired coating method and a coating characteristic (column 10 lines 10-23). Hyun teaches that additives such as an antifoaming/defoaming agent are used to improve the coating properties of a coating solution, however the concentration of the defoamer should, preferably, be as small as possible to maintain battery properties (column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the slurry composition taught by Hu by adding a defoaming agent as taught by Hyun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the slurry composition taught by Hu by adding a defoaming agent as taught by Hyun to improve coating characteristics and properties of the slurry (column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5; column 10 lines 10-23).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the inorganic composite layer has pores formed by connecting and fixing inorganic particles and one-dimensional inorganic material to each other ([0032] “network-like structure in the ceramic coating” with air permeability).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the slurry composition further contains an organic binder in an amount of 1 to 50 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the one-dimensional inorganic material ([0037]; [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the one- dimensional inorganic material is an inorganic nanowire, an inorganic nanofiber, or a combination thereof ([0032]; [0035] glass fiber; [0036]; [0061] nanowires).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the one- dimensional inorganic material has a diameter of 1 to 100 nm and a length of 0.01 to 100 um ([0055]; [0058]; [0067]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the one- dimensional inorganic material comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from a metal, carbon, a metal oxide, a metal nitride, a metal carbide, a metal carbonate, a metal hydrate, and a metal carbonitride ([0035]; [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 6. Hu further teaches wherein the one- dimensional inorganic material comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from Al2O3, TiO2, SiC, SiC2 ([0035]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the inorganic particles comprises one or more of aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, barium sulfate, and calcium sulfate ([0034]; [0082]; alumina powder and porous alumina powder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a mixture of two types of inorganic particles from the compounds disclosed by Hu (such as alumina powder and porous alumina powder).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a mixture of two types of inorganic particles because it is encompassed within the disclosure taught by Hu.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 8.
Hu does not teach wherein the inorganic particles comprise a mixture of two or more selected from boehmite, Al2O3, TiO2, CeO2, MgO, NiO, Y2O3, CaO, SrTiO3, SnO2, ZnO, and ZrO2.
However, Hu further teaches wherein the inorganic particles comprises one or more of aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, barium sulfate, and calcium sulfate ([0034]; [0082]; alumina powder and porous alumina powder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a mixture of two types of inorganic particles from the compounds disclosed by Hu (such as alumina powder and porous alumina powder).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a mixture of two types of inorganic particles because it is encompassed within the disclosure taught by Hu.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein a size of the inorganic particle is 5-250nm ([0031]; [0015]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.001 to 20 µm. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1, wherein the slurry composition further contains an polymer binder in an amount of 1.5 to 15 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles ([0037]). Hu teaches that the binder may be any existing adhesive material ([0038]).
Hu does not teach organic particles.
However, Hyun teaches where a binder is preferably in the form of particles dispersed in a certain size in a solvent (column 10 lines 58-67 and column 11 lines 1-3). Hyun teaches that a binder in the form of particles mixed with inorganic particles and coated onto a separator can exhibit sufficient adhesive strength (column 10 lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the binder taught by Hu for the particle binder taught by Hyun.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the binder taught by Hu for the particle binder taught by Hyun with a reasonable expectation of success because the particle binder of Hyun is known in the art for use in inorganic composite separators. Further, the binder taught by Hyun exhibits good adhesive strength when mixed with inorganic particles and coated onto a separator (column 10 lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1.
Hu is silent as to the concentration of the defoamer with respect to the total slurry composition.
However, Hyun teaches that a defoamer should be added in an appropriate amount depending on the viscosity or surface energy of the finally obtained coating solution (column 10 lines 10-23). Hyun further teaches wherein the concentration of the defoamer should, preferably, be as small as possible to maintain battery properties (column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the content of the defoamer in the slurry taught by Hu to determine the minimum amount of defoamer required as taught by Hyun. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could reach the claimed range of through routine experimentation in view of Hu and Hyun which teaches the use of a minimal amount of defoamer to improve coating properties of a slurry.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the porous substrate comprises one or more selected from polyethylene, polypropylene, copolymer of polyethylene and/or polypropylene ([0044]; [0056] PE membrane).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu further teaches a substrate with a thickness of 10µm with a ceramic coating with a thickness of 1µm on both sides ([0056]; [0059]; [0043]; [0049]). Therefore the thickness of composite separator taught by Hu falls within the thickness range claimed.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu teaches that the ceramic coating has a high porosity and uniform pore distribution giving the diaphragm good air permeability ([0031]; [0110]).
Hu is silent as to the pore size and the porosity of the composite separator.
However, Hyun teaches a composite separator comprising: (a) a porous substrate; and (b) an inorganic composite layer that is formed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (column 5 lines 14-20 and lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5) and is formed using a slurry composition containing inorganic particles and a defoamer (column 9 lines 39-53; column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5). Hyun teaches wherein a composite separator may be composed of a porous substrate having a pore size of 0.01-50µm and a porosity of 5-95% and a coating layer having a pore diameter of 0.001-10µm and a porosity of 30-80% (column 9 lines 23-25; column 6 lines 64-67; column 7 lines 1-5). Hyun teaches that a pore diameter less than 0.001 results in decrease lithium-ion transfer capability while a pore diameter larger than 10µm results in a deterioration of mechanical properties (column 9 lines 23-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pore size of the composite separator taught by Yao to have a diameter of 0.001-10µm as taught by Hyun thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the pore size of the composite separator taught by modified Hu to have a diameter of 0.001-10µm as taught by Hyun to maximize lithium-ion transfer and mechanical strength (column 9 lines 23-32). 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) (see MPEP§2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1. Hu teaches that the ceramic separator prevents a battery from experiencing thermal shrinkage at high temperatures ([0029]; [0112]). Hu further teaches that using an aqueous polyacrylate emulsion in combination with small-particle-size inorganic ceramic powder and one-dimensional nanomaterials, results in ceramic membranes with higher mechanical properties, higher adhesion strength and higher air permeability ([0039]).
Modified Hu does not teach wherein an adhesive force at 25°C (A25) and an adhesive force at 90°C (A90) between the porous substrate and the inorganic composite layer of the composite separator satisfy the following Expression 1: [Expression 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
13
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the adhesive force is obtained by measuring a peel strength between the porous substrate and the inorganic composite layer using a universal testing machine (UTM) (3343, manufactured by Instron Corporation) according to ASTM D903, and a unit thereof is gf/15 mm.
However, modified Hu teaches all aspects of the composite separator of claim 1. For example, modified Hu teaches a composite separator comprising: (a) a porous substrate (Hu [0012]; [0015]; [0031] diaphragm with good air permeability necessitates porosity); and (b) an inorganic composite layer that is formed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (Hu [0012]) and is formed using a slurry composition containing inorganic particles, inorganic nanowires with a diameter of 40-200nm, a length of 0.5-10µm, and a high aspect ratio ([0013]; [0015]; [0028]; [0076]), and a defoamer (Hyun column 9 lines 11-22; column 12 Example 1; column 10 lines 10-23; column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5), wherein the inorganic composite layer comprises 60 to 99 wt% of the inorganic particles based on a total weight of the inorganic composite layer ([0054]-[0055] Example 1; [0057]-[0058] Example 2) and wherein the inorganic composite layer comprises 1 to 50 parts by weight of the one-dimensional inorganic material with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles ([0054]-[0055] Example 1; [0057]-[0058] Example 2). Hu teaches the use of a dispersant agent ([0044]). Absent specific claimed features that result in an adhesive force at 25°C (A25) and an adhesive force at 90°C (A90) between the porous substrate and the inorganic composite layer of the composite separator satisfying t Expression 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
13
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed.
Regarding claims 18-19, modified Hu teaches the separator according to claim 1. Hu teaches that a separator is used in a lithium-ion battery ([0026]; [0036]; [0014]; [0051]) to prevent thermal shrinkage at high temperatures which could lead to contact between positive and negative electrodes as well as improve electrolyte absorption ([0029]) while Hyun teaches the use of a separator in an electrochemical device, such as a lithium secondary battery, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte (column 10, lines 34-54).
Regarding claim 20, A method of manufacturing a composite separator, the method comprising: coating a slurry composition containing inorganic particles, a one-dimensional inorganic material, and a dispersant onto one or both surfaces of a porous substrate; and drying the coated porous substrate to form an inorganic composite layer ([0013]; [0056]).
Hu does not teach a defoamer in the slurry composition.
However, Hyun teaches a porous substrate with an inorganic composite layer (column 6 lines 44-51; column 8 lines 29-37) comprising inorganic particles, binder, and additives (column 9 lines 11-22; column 12 Example 1) wherein the kind of the additives, such as defoamer, can be appropriately selected and used depending on a desired coating method and a coating characteristic (column 10 lines 10-23). Hyun teaches that additives such as an antifoaming/defoaming agent are used to improve the coating properties of a coating solution, however the concentration of the defoamer should, preferably, be as small as possible to maintain battery properties (column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the slurry composition taught by Hu by adding a defoaming agent as taught by Hyun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the slurry composition taught by Hu by adding a defoaming agent as taught by Hyun to improve coating characteristics and properties of the slurry (column 5 lines 64-67; column 6 lines 1-5; column 10 lines 10-23).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 14. Hu further teaches wherein the polyethylene of the porous substrate comprises one or more selected from high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolymers thereof ([0044] polypropylene).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 105529425 A) in view of Hyun et al. (US 10270073 B2), as applied above, in further view of Wang et al. (CN110993863A) hereinafter “Wang”. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translations.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hu teaches the composite separator of claim 1.
Modified Hu is silent as to the type of defoamer.
However, Wang teaches a slurry for a composite separator containing a defoaming agent ([0006]) wherein the defoamer contains polyoxyalkylene or a unit derived from a polyoxyalkylene compound ([0012]-[0013] for example polyoxypropylene glyceryl ether).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composite separator taught by modified Hu by selecting a defoamer that contains polyoxyalkylene or a unit derived from a polyoxyalkylene compound, such as polyoxypropylene glyceryl ether, as taught by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the composite separator taught by modified Hu by selecting a defoamer that contains polyoxyalkylene or a unit derived from a polyoxyalkylene compound, such as polyoxypropylene glyceryl ether, as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because a defoamer that contains polyoxyalkylene or a unit derived from a polyoxyalkylene compound is an art recognized defoamer for use in separator slurry compositions. Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 100 parts by weight of alumina powder (i.e. inorganic particles) and total composite layer = 118.77 parts. Alumina powder comprises ~84% of the weight of the composite layer
2 100 parts by weight of alumina powder (i.e. inorganic particles) and total composite layer = 134.75 parts. Alumina powder comprises ~74% of the weight of the composite layer
3 100 parts by weight of alumina powder (i.e. inorganic particles) and 25 parts by weight of titanium dioxide nanorods (one-dimensional inorganic material)