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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Wang et al. (WO 2019153822A1) in view of Hu et al. (WO 2018040904A1) fails to teach or disclose the newly-amended limitation of
“the adhesive coating laver is a three-dimensional matrix and the amine compound is polvethyleneimine, amino pentanol, aminobutane amide, cyclohexene amine, benzyl amine, methyl ethyl pentyl amine, triethylene amine, or combinations thereof.” In particular, Applicant states that the adhesive coating is a three-dimensional matrix characterized by an organically interconnected network, which is materially different from the adhesive coating taught by Wang et al. in view of Hu et al., which, in Applicant’s view, at most teaches polymer powder particles that are non-uniformly or irregularly distributed or arranged.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the above limitation is taught by the prior art, as set forth in detail in the claim rejections below. The Examiner further notes that the “three-dimensional matrix” is broadly described in the Instant Specification with no mention of an organically interconnected network, and further there is nothing in the claim language or the Instant Specification that would indicate that the adhesive taught by Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. could not be considered a three-dimensional network under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “three-dimensional network.”
Applicant further argues that Hu et al. does not teach or suggest that polyethyleneimine amine (PEI) is the preferred dispersant from the dispersants listed in Hu et al., and that Hu et al.’s specific examples do not utilize PEI.
The Examiner maintains that paras [0101]-[0102] of Hu et al. teach the use of PEI as a viable option for a dispersant material, which renders the use of PEI as a dispersant obvious regardless of whether or not PEI is the preferred embodiment of Hu et al.’s invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2019153822A1, as read via machine translation) in view of Hu et al. (WO 2018040904A1, as read via US equivalent, US 2021/0288381).
As to claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a separator for a rechargeable lithium battery (see e.g. lithium-ion battery separator, Wang et al.: [0006]), the separator comprising:
a substrate (see e.g. substrate, Wang et al.: [0006]); and
an adhesive coating layer on the substrate (see e.g. adhesive polymer coating that coats the substrate, Wang et al.: [0006]) and including a polymer cluster (see e.g. aggregates of particle of adhesive polymer powder, Wang et al.: [0006]),
wherein: the polymer cluster includes coagulated polymer particles (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0006], the polymer powder is an aggregate of particles and can thereby be considered to be coagulated),
and the adhesive coating laver is a three-dimensional matrix (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0006], particles of the adhesive polymer powder are dispersed in an aqueous adhesive and the adhesive coating occupies three dimensions; as such the adhesive coating layer can reasonably be considered to be a three-dimensional matrix. See also the Response to Arguments above).
Further regarding claim 1, Wang et al. does not disclose an adhesive coating layer that includes an amine compound that is polyethyleneimine, amino pentanol, aminobutane amide, cyclohexene amine, benzyl amine, methyl ethyl pentyl amine, triethylene amine, or combinations thereof, or that a weight ratio of a polymer included in the polymer cluster and the amine compound is 95:5 to 99.9:0.1.
Hu et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium batteries, teaches that the amine compound polyethyleneimine (PEI) functions as a dispersant for a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer powder (see e.g. Hu et al.: [0101]-[0102], note that Hu et al. adopts the alternative spelling “polyethylenimine (PEI),” which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being polyethyleneimine). Hu et al. teaches that PEI should be added in an amount of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (see e.g. Hu et al.: [0102]), which is equivalent to a weight ratio of 90:10 to 99.95:0.05 polymer to amine compound, and which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 95:5 to 99.9:0.1.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al.’s separator by adding an amine compound that is polyethyleneimine to the adhesive coating layer such that a weight ratio of a polymer included in the polymer cluster and the amine compound is 95:5 to 99.9:0.1 in the manner taught by Hu et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to add this amine compound to Wang et al.’s separator because Hu et al. teaches that the amine compound is a dispersant which effectively disperses the polymer without changing the pH of the solution (paragraph [0102]), and said artisan would have wanted to ensure that the polymer clusters of Wang et al. are dispersed to ensure uniform properties.
As to claim 2, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the polymer cluster includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVdF-HFP) copolymer, an acrylate polymer, a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl butyral (PVB), an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, acrylonitrile, an acetic acid vinyl derivative, polyethylene glycol, an acryl rubber, or combinations thereof (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0009], the polymer cluster may comprise polyvinylidene fluoride or polyacrylonitrile, an acrylonitrile).
As to claim 5, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the adhesive coating layer has a loading amount of 0.1 g/m2 to 1.2 g/m2, on one side of the substrate (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0033], the adhesive polymer coating reads on the claimed adhesive coating layer and has a coating surface density of 0.6 g/m2, which reads on the claimed loading amount and lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of of 0.1 g/m2 to 1.2 g/m2).
As to claim 6, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the polymer cluster has a particle diameter of 0.1 mm to 200 mm (see e.g. the adhesive polymer powder of Wang et al., which reads on the polymer clusters and has a particle size of 0.1 mm to 200 mm, Wang et al.: [0009]).
As to claim 7, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 wherein the substrate (see e.g. the substrate of the battery separator, Wang et al.: [0006]-[0007]) includes polyethylene, polypropylene polyolefin, polyester, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyacetal, polyamide, polyimide, polycarbonate, polyether ether ketone, polyaryl ether ketone, polyetherimide, polyamideimide, polybenzimidazole, polyether sulfone, polyphenylene oxide, a cyclic olefin copolymer, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethylene naphthalene, glass fiber, or combinations thereof (see e.g. Wang et al. [0007], which discloses that the substrate that may be polyolefin or polyamide).
As to claim 8, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, further comprising a ceramic layer (see e.g. ceramic layer, Wang et al.: [0033]) between the substrate and the adhesive coating layer (see e.g. Wang et al. [0033] describes a ceramic layer that coats a membrane substrate that is coated with an adhesive polymer coating that reads on the claimed adhesive coating such that the ceramic layer is between the substrate and the adhesive coating layer).
As to claim 15, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, which comprises a coagulated polymer cluster that reads on the instantly-claimed coagulated polymer cluster (see e.g. [0006], the polymer powder is an aggregate of particles and can thereby be considered to be coagulated).
The claim language “wherein the coagulated polymer cluster is formed by coagulating polymer particles using a mixed solvent including water and an organic solvent” is a recitation of how the coagulated polymer cluster was made, and does not patentably distinguish the structure of the claimed coagulated polymer cluster over that of Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s coagulated polymer cluster (see MPEP 2113). Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. therefore teaches a separator that reads on the claimed separator.
As to claim 16, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, which comprises a coagulated polymer cluster that reads on the instantly-claimed coagulated polymer cluster (see e.g. [0006], the polymer powder is an aggregate of particles and can thereby be considered to be coagulated).
The recitation in claim 16 of a mixing ratio of the mixed solvent used in the process of forming said coagulated polymer cluster is a recitation of how the coagulated polymer cluster was made, and does not patentably distinguish the structure of the claimed coagulated polymer cluster over that of Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s coagulated polymer cluster. Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. therefore teaches a separator that reads on the claimed separator. The Examiner notes that the ratio of solvents used in a step of forming the polymer clusters are not present in the final product as the solvent has been removed.
As to claim 17, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the polymer of the polymer cluster may be polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. adhesive polymer powder, which may be polyvinylidene fluoride, Wang et al.: [0009]). Polyvinylidene fluoride has a typical molecular weight of 530,000 g/mol (see attached document Li et al., pg. 66, col. 2, para 3, citing a molecular weight of 5.3x105), which lies within the claimed range of 20,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s polymer therefore obviates on the claimed polymer (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2019153822A1) in view of Hu et al. (WO 2018040904A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0288192).
As to claim 3, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. is silent as to the relative thickness of the substrate and the adhesive coating layer and is silent as to whether the adhesive coating layer has a thickness of 5 % to 30 % of a total thickness of the separator.
Chen et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium-ion batteries, teaches an analogous separator comprising a substrate (see e.g. substrate 12, Chen et al.: [0008], [0029] and Fig. 2), a ceramic layer (see e.g. inorganic coating 14, Chen et al.: [0029]) and an adhesive coating layer (see e.g. organic coating 16, Chen et al.: [0008]-[0009], [0029]) comprising polymer particles (see e.g. polymer particles, Chen et al.: [0008]-[0009]). In Chen et al.’s separator, the substrate has a thickness of 16 mm (see e.g. porous separator substrate, Chen et al.: [0032]), the ceramic layer has a thickness of 1-10 mm (see e.g. inorganic coating, Chen et al.: [0156]), and the adhesive coating layer has a thickness of 1-200 mm (see e.g. organic coating, Chen et al.: [0065]).
As such, Chen et al.’s separator has a coating layer with a total thickness in the range of 3.7%-92.1% of the total thickness of the separator, because 200 mm/(16 mm + 1 mm + 200 mm) = 92.1% of the total thickness at the thickest amount of the adhesive coating, while 1 mm/(16 mm + 10 mm + 1 mm) = 3.7% at the thinnest amount of the adhesive coating. Chen et al. therefore teaches an adhesive coating that is 3.7% to 92.1% of the total thickness of the separator, which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 5% to 30%.
Chen et al. further teaches that when the thickness of the adhesive coating layer is too large, the ion channels in the coating become too long and the ion conductivity is reduced (see e.g. Chen et al.: [0063]). Chen et al. also teaches that when the thickness of the adhesive coating layer is too small, the organic coating does not improve the cycle capacity of the battery by enduring the expansion force of the charging/discharging battery (see e.g. Chen et al.: [0064]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the separator of Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. such that the adhesive coating layer has a thickness of 5 % to 30 % of a total thickness of the separator. Said artisan would have been motivated to select an adhesive coating thickness within this range because Chen et al. teaches that an adhesive coating layer within this thickness range improves the cycle capacity of the battery without reducing the ion conductivity of the coating layer.
As to claim 4, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
However, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. is silent as to the area of the adhesive coating layer, and Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. is silent as to whether the adhesive coating layer has an area corresponding to 30% to 80% of a total area of one side of the substrate.
Chen et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium-ion batteries, teaches an analogous separator comprising a substrate (see e.g. substrate 12, Chen et al.: [0008], [0029] and Fig. 2), and an adhesive coating layer (see e.g. organic coating 16, Chen et al.: [0008]-[0009], [0029]) comprising polymer particles (see e.g. polymer particles, Chen et al.: [0008]-[0009]). Chen et al.’s adhesive coating layer covers 1% to 95% of a total area of one side of the substrate (see e.g. Chen et al.: [0015]), which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 30% to 80% of a total area of one side of the substrate.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s separator such that the adhesive coating layer has an area corresponding to 30% to 80% of a total area of one side of the substrate, because Chen et al. teaches a functionally equivalent adhesive coating layer having an area in this range.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2019153822A1) in view of Hu et al. (WO 2018040904A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0288192).
As to claim 9, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Wang et al. is silent as to whether the ceramic layer includes SiO2, A12O3, Al (OH)3, AlO(OH), TiO2, BaTiO2, ZnO2, Mg(OH)2, MgO, Ti(OH)4, ZrO2, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, boron nitride, or combinations thereof.
Chen et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium-ion batteries, teaches an analogous separator comprising a polymer substrate (see e.g. substrate 12, Chen et al.: [0008], [0029] and Fig. 2), and a ceramic layer (see e.g. inorganic coating 14, Chen et al.: [0029]) in which the ceramic layer comprises Al2O3 (see e.g. aluminum oxide powder, Chen et al.: [0033])
[0012], [0016], [0029], [0033], and Fig. 2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s separator by using the ceramic layer comprising Al2O3 taught by Chen et al. as the ceramic layer in Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s separator. Said artisan would have found such a substitution to be obvious because Chen et al. teaches a ceramic layer comprising Al2O3 that is a functional equivalent to Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s ceramic layer, and is used for the same purpose of coating a separator substrate.
As to claim 10, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches the separator for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Wang et al. is silent as to whether the ceramic layer further includes a polymer binder.
Chen et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium-ion batteries, teaches an analogous separator comprising a polymer substrate (see e.g. substrate 12, Chen et al.: [0008], [0029] and Fig. 2), and a ceramic layer (see e.g. inorganic coating 14, Chen et al.: [0029]) in which the ceramic layer comprises a polymer binder (see e.g. binder, Chen et al.: [0016]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s separator by using the polymer binder taught by Chen et al. in the ceramic layer of Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s separator. Said artisan would have found such a substitution to be obvious because Chen et al. teaches a ceramic layer comprising a binder that is a functional equivalent to Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s ceramic layer, and is used for the same purpose of coating a separator substrate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2019153822A1, as read via machine translation) in view of Hu et al. (WO 2018040904A1, as read via US equivalent, US 2021/0288381), and Chen et al. (US 2017/0288192).
As to claim 11, Wang et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising:
a negative electrode (see e.g. negative electrode sheet, [0050]) including a negative active material (see e.g. the negative electrode sheet comprises graphite, [0050]);
a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode sheet, [0050]) including a positive active material (see e.g. nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary material, [0050]); and
a separator between the negative and positive electrodes (see e.g. lithium-ion battery separator, [0002], [0006]), the separator comprising:
a substrate (see e.g. substrate, [0006]); and
an adhesive coating layer on the substrate (see e.g. adhesive polymer coating that coats the substrate, [0006]) and including a polymer cluster (see e.g. aggregates of particle of adhesive polymer powder, [0006]),
wherein: the polymer cluster includes coagulated polymer particles (see e.g. [0006], the polymer powder is an aggregate of particles and can thereby be considered to be coagulated).
Wang et al. does not disclose an adhesive coating layer that includes an amine compound, and a weight ratio of a polymer included in the polymer cluster and the amine compound is 95:5 to 99.9:0.1.
Hu et al., also working in the field of separators for lithium batteries, teaches that the amine compound polyethyleneimine (PEI) functions as a dispersant for a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer powder (see e.g. Hu et al.: [0101]-[0102], note that Hu et al. adopts the alternative spelling “polyethylenimine,” which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being polyethyleneimine). Hu et al. teaches that PEI should be added in an amount of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (see e.g. Hu et al.: [0102]), which is equivalent to a weight ratio of 90:10 to 99.95:0.05 polymer to amine compound, and which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 95:5 to 99.9:0.1.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al.’s separator by adding an amine compound to the adhesive coating layer such that a weight ratio of a polymer included in the polymer cluster and the amine compound is 95:5 to 99.9:0.1 in the manner taught by Hu et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to add this amine compound to Wang et al.’s separator because Hu et al. teaches that the amine compound is a dispersant, and said artisan would have wanted to ensure that the polymer clusters of Wang et al. are dispersed.
Further regarding claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. teaches that lithium-ion batteries typically contain an electrolyte (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0022]), but Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. does not specify that the electrolyte is a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Chen et al., also working on separator designs for lithium-ion batteries teaches an equivalent rechargeable lithium ion battery comprising a negative electrode (see e.g. anode plate, [0017]) including a negative active material (see e.g. anode active material, Chen et al.: [0030]), a positive electrode (see e.g. cathode plate, Chen et al.: [0017]) including a positive active material (see e.g. cathode active material, Chen et al.: [0031]), and a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (see e.g. Chen et al. [0017], disclosing a separator between the anode plate and the cathode plate). Chen et al.’s battery uses the non-aqueous electrolyte of lithium hexafluoride in ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (see e.g. Chen et al.: [0041]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Wang et al. in view of Hu et al. by using the non-aqueous electrolyte taught by Chen et al. as the electrolyte. This is because Chen et al. teaches that this non-aqueous electrolyte is a known electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery, and the use of Chen et al.’s non-aqueous electrolyte in Wang et al. in view of Hu et al.’s battery would fail to produce any patentably distinct effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogawa et al. (JP 2010024318-A as read via machine translation) teaches the use of benzylamine, aromatic amines, and alkylamines as dispersants.
Shooter et al (WO 2017/132380) teaches the use of modified alkyl amines as dispersants (see e.g. [0004]).
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 at (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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights