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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-10 and 17) in the reply filed on December 19th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 19th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “by weight the total weight” in Lines 2-3 and should read --by weight of the total weight--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, “the separator is the same as defined in any one of claims 1 to 10” is recited in Lines 1-2, however it is unclear as to the separator is specifically, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the invention. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the limitation as -- the separator is the same as defined in claim 1--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (WO2019103545 (A1) and using U.S. PGPub US 2020/0014010 (A1) as machine translation of English version), in view of Lim et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2014/0370383 (A1)).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon et al. discloses a separator for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a porous polymer substrate (i.e., at least porous polymer substrate as disclosed in Par. [0016], also see Abstract, Pars. [0052], [0097]-[0103], [0109]);
and a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (i.e., at least forming a porous coating layer onto the porous polymer substrate as disclosed in Par. [0104], also see Fig. 1, S1-3, Pars. [0009], [0015], Figs. 2b-c),
wherein the porous coating layer comprises inorganic particles (i.e., at least inorganic particles as disclosed in Par. [0048], also see Fig. 1, Pars. [0009], [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0033]-[0034], [0048], [0064], [0066]),
a fluorine-containing binder polymer (A) (i.e., at least first binder polymer such as polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, etc., as disclosed in Par. [0060], lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Pars. [0048], [0120]),
and an ethylenic copolymer (B) having an ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) and a vinyl acetate monomer-derived repeating unit (b) (i.e., at least second binder polymer such as polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate, etc., as disclosed in Par. [0090], such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that a copolymer containing ethylene and vinyl acetate necessarily possesses an ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit and a vinyl acetate monomer-derived repeating unit, lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Par. [0048]).
Kwon et al. further discloses in Par. [0023] the total content of the second binder polymer is 5-13 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder polymer solution, etc., and further discloses in Pars. [0049]-[0052] applying a slurry for forming a porous coating layer to at last one surface of the porous polymer substrate, followed by drying, to form a porous coating layer, which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of an amount of the ethylenic copolymer is 5 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the porous coating layer, such that said second binder polymer is at least polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate as discussed above, etc., and said porous coating layer at least contains solid contents of the binder polymer solution (i.e., inorganic particles, first/second binder polymer(s), etc.) so as to form said porous coating layer as discussed above, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) (also see Par. [0023]).
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 or less.
Lim et al. teaches an ethylene copolymer-fluoropolymer hybrid battery binder (Title). Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0013]-[0016] a blend composition comprising (a) an ethylene copolymer or combination thereof comprising copolymerized units of ethylene and a comonomer, etc., which at least provides an ethylenic copolymer including an ethylene monomer-derivative, etc., lacking any further chemical distinction thereof. Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0035] the ethylene copolymer component of the binder compositions can be a dipolymer, a terpolymer, a tetrapolymer, or combinations thereof, etc., whereby at least one comonomer in the copolymer is vinyl acetate, an alkyl acrylate and/or an alkyl methacrylate, etc., whereby as taught in Par. [0049] ethylene copolymers with higher alkyl acrylate content, etc., are elastomeric, and thus elastomeric copolymers include a copolymer derived from copolymerization of Par. [0050] (a) from 13 to 50 weight % of ethylene; [0051] (b) from 50 to 80 weight % of an alkyl acrylate; and [0052] (c) from 0 to 7 weight % of a monoalkyl ester of 1,4-butene-dioic acid, etc., such that as taught in [0057] the elastomeric copolymers may have number average molecular weight from about 40,000 to about 65,000, etc., which at least provides a weight average molecular weight range that is within the claimed range of the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) (also see Pars. [0033], [0044], [0073]).
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include the ethylenic copolymer weight average molecular weight range of about 40,000 to about 65,000 as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
Furthermore, and as put forth by the examiner, since Lim et al. teaches in [0073] it may be desirable to use multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer to build up its molecular weight, the skilled artisan before the effective filing date would appreciate optimizing said molecular weight through routine experimentation with multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer so as to build up the molecular weight, thereby providing improved adhesion over previous binder materials (MPEP 2144.05, II., A., "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the content of the ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) is 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the ethylenic copolymer.
Lim et al. teaches an ethylene copolymer-fluoropolymer hybrid battery binder (Title). Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0013]-[0016] a blend composition comprising (a) an ethylene copolymer or combination thereof comprising copolymerized units of ethylene and a comonomer, etc., which at least provides an ethylenic copolymer including an ethylene monomer-derivative, etc., lacking any further chemical distinction thereof. Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0035] the ethylene copolymer component of the binder compositions can be a dipolymer, a terpolymer, a tetrapolymer, or combinations thereof, etc., whereby at least one comonomer in the copolymer is vinyl acetate, an alkyl acrylate and/or an alkyl methacrylate, etc., whereby as taught in Par. [0049] ethylene copolymers with higher alkyl acrylate content, etc., are elastomeric, and thus elastomeric copolymers include a copolymer derived from copolymerization of Par. [0050] (a) from 13 to 50 weight % of ethylene; [0051] (b) from 50 to 80 weight % of an alkyl acrylate; and [0052] (c) from 0 to 7 weight % of a monoalkyl ester of 1,4-butene-dioic acid, etc., which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the content of the ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) is 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight the total weight of the ethylenic copolymer, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) (also see Pars. [0014], [0037], [0049]-[0052], [0069]-[0072]).
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include ethylene in quantities of 13 to 50 weight % (i.e., at least ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) based on 100 parts by weight the total weight of the ethylenic copolymer) as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the ethylenic copolymer further comprises a comonomer-derived repeating unit (c), the comonomer-derived repeating unit comprises a repeating unit derived from an acrylate monomer, a carboxyl group-containing C1-C10 monomer, or two or more monomers of them, and the content of the ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) is 13 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the ethylenic copolymer.
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0013]-[0016] a blend composition comprising (a) an ethylene copolymer or combination thereof comprising copolymerized units of ethylene and a comonomer, etc., which at least provides an ethylenic copolymer including an ethylene monomer-derivative, etc., lacking any further chemical distinction thereof. Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0035] the ethylene copolymer component of the binder compositions can be a dipolymer, a terpolymer, a tetrapolymer, or combinations thereof, etc., whereby at least one comonomer in the copolymer is vinyl acetate, an alkyl acrylate and/or an alkyl methacrylate, etc., whereby as taught in Par. [0049] ethylene copolymers with higher alkyl acrylate content, etc., are elastomeric, and thus elastomeric copolymers include a copolymer derived from copolymerization of Par. [0050] (a) from 13 to 50 weight % of ethylene; [0051] (b) from 50 to 80 weight % of an alkyl acrylate; and [0052] (c) from 0 to 7 weight % of a monoalkyl ester of 1,4-butene-dioic acid, etc. (also see Par. [0046] with regards to α,β-unsaturated dicarboxylic acid or its derivative, etc.), which at least provides the ethylenic copolymer further comprises a comonomer-derived repeating unit (c), the comonomer-derived repeating unit comprises a repeating unit derived from an acrylate monomer, a carboxyl group-containing C1-C10 monomer, or two or more monomers of them, and further provides a range of ethylene that overlaps the claimed range of the content of the ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) is 13 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the ethylenic copolymer, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). (also see Pars. [0013]-[0016], [0035]-[0039], [0060], [0069]-[0072]).
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include a comonomer-derived repeating unit (c), the comonomer-derived repeating unit comprises a repeating unit derived from an acrylate monomer (e.g., alkyl acrylate, etc.), a carboxyl group-containing C1-C10 monomer (monoalkyl ester of 1,4-butene-dioic acid, α,β-unsaturated dicarboxylic acid or its derivative, etc.), or two or more monomers of them, and the ethylene in quantities of 13 to 50 weight % (i.e., at least ethylene monomer-derived repeating unit (a) based on 100 parts by weight the total weight of the ethylenic copolymer) as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator including the molecular weight for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 4.
Lim et al. further teaches in [0057] the elastomeric copolymers may have number average molecular weight from about 40,000 to about 65,000, etc., which at least provides a weight average molecular weight range that is within the claimed range of the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 350,000 or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) (also see Pars. [0033], [0044], [0073]).
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include the ethylenic copolymer weight average molecular weight range of about 40,000 to about 65,000 as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
Furthermore, and as put forth by the examiner, since Lim et al. teaches in [0073] it may be desirable to use multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer to build up its molecular weight, the skilled artisan before the effective filing date would appreciate optimizing said molecular weight through routine experimentation with multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer so as to build up the molecular weight, thereby providing improved adhesion over previous binder materials (MPEP 2144.05, II., A., "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator including the porous coating layer, etc., for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kwon et al. further discloses a fluorine-containing binder polymer (A) (i.e., at least first binder polymer such as polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene, etc., as disclosed in Par. [0060], lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Pars. [0048], [0120]), which at least provides the fluorine-based binder polymer includes polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trifluoroethylene, etc., from the group.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kwon et al. further discloses in Par. [0122] the separator and the electrodes were stacked so that the separator faced the active material layers of the electrodes, etc., and Kwon et al. further discloses an adhesion (gf/15 mm) of 60 to 76 in Table 1 (Examples 1-4), (also see [0122], [0128]), which provides a value that is within the claimed range of an adhesion (Lami strength) between the separator and an electrode of 50 gf/25 mm or more, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose an adhesion (peel strength) between the porous polymer substrate and the porous coating layer of 70 gf/15 mm or more, and an adhesion (Lami strength) between the separator and an electrode of 50 gf/25 mm or more, with regards to the separator comprising the porous polymer substrate, porous coating layer, etc., as claimed in claim 1.
Although Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose an adhesion (Lami strength) between the separator and an electrode of 50 gf/25 mm or more, with regards to the separator comprising the porous polymer substrate, porous coating layer, etc., as claimed in claim 1, since Kwon et al. discloses in Table 1 (Examples 1-4) values of 60 to 76 gf/15 mm, which are large than values of adhesion for the counter examples, the skilled artisan would appreciate before the effective filing date optimizing through routine experimentation the adhesion strength, so as to provide a separator having excellent adhesion, etc. as disclosed in Par. [0035] (MPEP 2144.05, II., A., "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Furthermore, since Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. discloses a product including the separator, including the porous polymer substrate, porous coating layer, as well as discloses an electrode, that is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed and as discussed above in claim 1, properties and/or functions such as an adhesion (peel strength) between the porous polymer substrate and the porous coating layer of 70 gf/15 mm or more, and an adhesion (Lami strength) between the separator and an electrode of 50 gf/25 mm or more are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator as discussed above in claim 1. Kwon et al. further discloses Par. [0111] the electrochemical device according includes a cathode, an anode a separator interposed between the cathode and an anode, which at least reads on “a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”, lacking any further distinction thereof.
However, as discussed above in claim 1 Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 or less.
Kwon et al. and Lim et al. disclose the separator as discussed above in claim 1. Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include the ethylenic copolymer weight average molecular weight range of about 40,000 to about 65,000 as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
Furthermore, and as put forth by the examiner, since Lim et al. teaches in [0073] it may be desirable to use multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer to build up its molecular weight, the skilled artisan before the effective filing date would appreciate optimizing said molecular weight through routine experimentation with multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer so as to build up the molecular weight, thereby providing improved adhesion over previous binder materials (MPEP 2144.05, II., A., "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon and Lim as applied to claim 1 above, or in the alternative, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2006/0204854 (A1)).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-400,000.
Lim et al. teaches an ethylene copolymer-fluoropolymer hybrid battery binder (Title). Lim et al. further teaches in [0073] it may be desirable to use multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer to build up its molecular weight, such that the skilled artisan before the effective filing date would appreciate optimizing said molecular weight through routine experimentation with multifunctional additives with an ethylene copolymer so as to build up the molecular weight, thereby providing improved adhesion over previous binder materials (MPEP 2144.05, II., A., "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Lim et al. further teaches in Par. [0068] the compositions described herein provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials (also see Par. [0031]).
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., to further include the ethylenic copolymer weight average molecular weight and multifunctional additive(s) so as to increase the molecular weight as taught by Lim et al. so as to provide improved adhesion over previous binder materials.
In the alternative, and as put forth by the examiner in the interest of compact prosecution, Fujimoto et al. teaches a gel-type polymer electrolyte and use thereof (Title). Fujimoto et al. further teaches in [0058] it is desired that the ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer or the derivative thereof (A) (hereinafter often referred to as compound (A)) has a composition containing an ethylene, an unsaturated carboxylic acid, and other monomers, etc., which at least provides and ethylenic copolymer including an ethylene monomer- derivative, etc., lacking any further chemical distinction thereof. Fujimoto further teaches in [0070] it is desired that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) is particularly from 4,000 to 500,000 (i.e., corresponds to a number average molecular weight (Mn) of preferably from 1,000 to 100,000), etc., which at least provides a weight average molecular weight range that overlaps the claimed range of the ethylenic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-400,000, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) (also see [0020]-[0021], [0029], [0062], [0068], Preparation Examples 1-4, Table 1).
Fujimoto et al. further teaches in [0018] it is a first object of the present invention to provide a novel polymer electrolyte having a high ionic conductivity, which is useful for forming cells that exhibit excellent charging/discharging characteristics at low temperatures as well as at high temperatures.
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. in view of Fujimoto et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. and Lim et al. that discloses separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, ethylenic copolymer, etc., as disclosed by Kwon et al. and Lim et al. to further include the ethylenic copolymer weight average molecular weight range as taught by Fujimoto et al. so as to provide a novel polymer electrolyte having a high ionic conductivity, which is useful for forming cells that exhibit excellent charging/discharging characteristics at low temperatures as well as at high temperatures.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon and Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0006011 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator including the porous coating layer for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the porous coating layer further comprises a dispersing agent.
Chen et al. teaches a heat-resistant porous separator and method for manufacturing the same (Title). Chen et al. further teaches Par. [0009] the present invention provides a novel heat-resistant and high electrolyte absorption ability, whereby the heat-resistant porous separator comprises a porous substrate and a composite coating layer, etc. (also see Pars. [0010]-[0012]). Chen et al. further teaches Pars. [0017]-[0018] the composite coating layer further comprises a dispersant, whereby the dispersant is selected from the group consisting of 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, methacryloyl propyltrimethoxysilane, vinyltrimethoxysilane, and a combination thereof, etc., which at least reads on “the porous coating layer further comprises a dispersing agent”.
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. in view of Chen et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, etc., to further include the dispersant (e.g., 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, etc.) as taught by Chen et al. so as to provide a heat-resistant porous separator that comprises a porous substrate and a composite coating layer that has a high electrolyte absorption ability.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. in view of Chen et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 6.
However, Kwon et al. does not explicitly disclose the dispersing agent includes a fatty acid compound, an alkyl ammonium-based compound, a titanate-based compound, a silane-based compound, a phenolic compound, or two or more of them.
Chen et al. further teaches Pars. [0017]-[0018] the composite coating layer further comprises a dispersant, whereby the dispersant is selected from the group consisting of 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, methacryloyl propyltrimethoxysilane, vinyltrimethoxysilane, and a combination thereof, etc., which at least provides the dispersing agent includes a silane-based compound from the group, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. in view of Chen et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, etc., to further include the dispersant (e.g., 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, etc.) as taught by Chen et al. so as to provide a heat-resistant porous separator that comprises a porous substrate and a composite coating layer that has a high electrolyte absorption ability.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon and Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2013/0224553 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. disclose the separator for a lithium secondary battery as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Kwon et al in view of Lim et al. do not explicitly disclose the fluorine-based binder polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-1,500,000.
Hong et al. teaches a separator including coating layer and battery including the same (Title). Hong et al. further teaches [0036] in an example embodiment, a separator includes a coating layer of an organic and inorganic mixture containing a polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer, a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a solvent, and inorganic particles, in which the solvent may be present in an amount of 100 ppm or less in the coating layer, whereby as taught in Par. [0037] the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) homopolymer may have a weight average molecular weight of about 1,000,000 g/mol or more, e.g., about 1,000,000 g/mol to about 1,200,000 g/mol, which provides a range of values within the claimed range of the fluorine-based binder polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-1,500,000, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Hong et al. further teaches Par. [0038] within this molecular weight range, the polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer may improve adhesion between the coating layer and the base film to achieve efficient suppression of thermal shrinkage of a polyolefin base film, which may be susceptible to heat, and may provide good adhesion between the coating layer and electrodes to help prevent a short circuit between electrodes.
Therefore, Kwon et al. and Lim et al. in view of Hong et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kwon et al. in view of Lim et al. that discloses the separator for a lithium secondary battery including the porous coating layer, fluorine-based binder polymer (A), etc., to further include the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) homopolymer may have a weight average molecular weight of about 1,000,000 g/mol to about 1,200,000 g/mol as taught by Hong et al., such that in this molecular weight range, the polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer may improve adhesion between the coating layer and the base film to achieve efficient suppression of thermal shrinkage of a polyolefin base film, which may be susceptible to heat, and may provide good adhesion between the coating layer and electrodes to help prevent a short circuit between electrodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. discloses a separator for rechargeable lithium battery and rechargeable lithium battery including the same (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0045] the coating layer may further include, e.g., a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxylmethyl cellulose (CMC), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinylbutyral(PVB), an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, acrylonitrile, a vinyl acetate derivative, a polyethylene glycol, acryl-based or -containing rubber, or a combination thereof, in addition to the polyvinylidene fluoride-containing compound and the acryl-containing compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached on (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723