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 Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on October 1st, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on June 12th, 2025.
Rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1st, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Liu does not disclose regeneration of a ceramic-coated separator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections of the claims are based on a combination of Liu and Ryu, wherein Liu discloses a method for preparing a composite resin composition ([0033]; preparing composite elastic material comprising oil-containing raw material, elastomer and filler) by regenerating a secondary battery waste separator ([0033]; recycling lithium battery diaphragm waste) and Ryu teaches that it was well known in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries ([0017]) to use separators ([0030]) comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ([0031]; UHMWPE substrate) coated with ceramic particles ([0005, 0030]; inorganic (ceramic) particles) or aramids ([0030, 0047]; polyaramid particles).
Applicant argues the claimed invention represents the first to regenerate an actual ceramic-coated waste separator, as opposed to merely addressing incidental ceramic components that may exist within conventional waste separators. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, examiner notes that it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (II).
Applicant argues Liu does not disclose (i) preprocessing to improve processability of the ceramic-coated separator and (ii) blending with low-viscosity materials, modifiers and additives to increase the melt index. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections of the claims are based on a combination of Liu and Ryu, wherein Liu discloses i) a pretreatment step of crushing the secondary battery waste separator into crushed waste separator material ([0048]; lithium battery diaphragm scraps are placed in open mill, wherein an open mill crushes materials between two nip rolls) and ii) a step of mixing pretreated secondary battery waste separator material with a polyolefin-based resin ([0038]; elastomer can be a polyolefin, such as EPDM or POE), a modifier ([0036]; paraffin oil) and an additive ([0039]; fillers, such as calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, attapulgite and calcium sulfate) to form a mixture ([0015, 0048]; uniformly mixing on an open mill) and melting ([0048]; mixture is heated to 130⁰C and therefore melting the polyethylene lithium battery diaphragm scraps), kneading ([0048]; mixture is uniformly mixed under pressure via the nip rollers of the open mill) and extruding ([0015]) the mixture. Ryu teaches that it was well known in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries ([0017]) to use separators ([0030]) comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ([0031]; UHMWPE substrate) coated with ceramic particles ([0005, 0030]; inorganic (ceramic) particles) or aramids ([0030, 0047]; polyaramid particles). Liu and Ryu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separators for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the UHMWPE lithium battery separator of Liu with the UHMWPE lithium battery separator coated with ceramic particles or aramids of Ryu to provide the secondary battery waste separator is coated with ceramic particles or aramids. This modification would have been obvious as the substitution would amount to simply selecting an alternative starting material and doing so would allow for the recycling of a greater variety of secondary battery separators.
Applicant argues the claimed invention solves the processability problem of ceramic-coated separators not contemplated by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II).
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110724360 A; hereafter Liu; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Ryu et al. (KR 20160041496 A; hereafter Ryu; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for preparing a composite resin composition ([0033]; preparing composite elastic material comprising oil-containing raw material, elastomer and filler) by regenerating a secondary battery waste separator ([0033]; recycling lithium battery diaphragm waste), the method comprising:
i) a pretreatment step of crushing the secondary battery waste separator into crushed waste separator material ([0048]; lithium battery diaphragm scraps are placed in open mill, wherein an open mill crushes materials between two nip rolls);
ii) a step of preparing a mixture by mixing crushed secondary battery waste separator material with a polyolefin-based resin ([0038]; elastomer can be a polyolefin, such as EPDM or POE), a modifier ([0036]; paraffin oil) and an additive ([0039]; fillers, such as calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, attapulgite and calcium sulfate) to form a mixture ([0015, 0048]; uniformly mixing on an open mill) and then melting ([0048]; mixture is heated to 130⁰C and therefore melting the polyethylene lithium battery diaphragm scraps), kneading ([0048]; mixture is uniformly mixed under pressure via the nip rollers of the open mill) and extruding ([0015]) the mixture;
and iii) a step of processing the mixture into a pellet form ([0015]; granulating),
wherein the pretreatment step i) is carried out in pressing a piece of the secondary battery waste separator through an open mill roll ([0048]; lithium battery diaphragm scraps are placed in open mill, wherein an open mill crushes materials between two nip rolls),
wherein the polyolefin-based resin of step ii) includes any one selected from the group consisting of polyolefin elastomer (POE) or ethylene propylene diene rubber (EPDM), and combinations thereof ([0013]; elastomer includes one or more of EPDM and POE),
and wherein the melting, kneading, and extruding step ii) is carried out by putting the mixture into a pressurized kneader ([0048]; mixture is uniformly mixed under pressure via the nip rollers of the open mill), melting under pressure ([0048]; mixture is heated to 130⁰C in the open mill and therefore melting the polyethylene lithium battery diaphragm scraps), kneading uniformly ([0048]; mixture is uniformly mixed under pressure via the nip rollers of the open mill), and then extruding the mixture ([0015, 0048]; extruding after uniformly mixing in open mill).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the secondary battery waste separator is coated with ceramic particles or aramids, the polyolefin-based resin has a melt index of 0.01 to 300 g/10 minutes under conditions of 190 °C to 230 ⁰C, 2.16 kg, and the composite resin composition has the melt index of 0.05 to 100 g/10 minutes under conditions of 190 °C, 2.16 kg.
However, Ryu teaches that it was well known in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries ([0017]) to use separators ([0030]) comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ([0031]; UHMWPE substrate) coated with ceramic particles ([0005, 0030]; inorganic (ceramic) particles) or aramids ([0030, 0047]; polyaramid particles).
Liu and Ryu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separators for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the UHMWPE lithium battery separator of Liu with the UHMWPE lithium battery separator coated with ceramic particles or aramids of Ryu to provide the secondary battery waste separator is coated with ceramic particles or aramids. This modification would have been obvious as the substitution would amount to simply selecting an alternative starting material and doing so would allow for the recycling of a greater variety of secondary battery separators.
Liu, in view of Ryu, does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin-based resin has a melt index of 0.01 to 300 g/10 minutes under conditions of 190 °C to 230 ⁰C, 2.16 kg, and the composite resin composition has the melt index of 0.05 to 100 g/10 minutes under conditions of 190 °C, 2.16 kg.
However, the courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977), See MPEP 2112.01 (II). As such, the polyolefin-based resin and the composite resin composition of Liu, in view of Ryu, provides the above limitations.
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Liu further discloses the secondary battery waste separator of step i) is a scrap or defective product generated during a process of preparing a secondary battery ([0004]; lithium battery diaphragm scraps are sourced from production of polyethylene lithium battery separators).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110724360 A; hereafter Liu; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Ryu et al. (KR 20160041496 A; hereafter Ryu; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR 1558215 B1; hereafter Jeon; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Liu does not disclose the pellet processing step iii) is produced in a form of pellets by cooling and solidifying an extrudate in a form of strand or by using a rotary cutter on an extruded surface.
However, Jeon teaches a method of recycling lithium secondary battery waste separators ([0007]) comprising crushing a waste ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene separator ([0006]), melting and extruding the waste ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene separator into pellets ([0016]) and cooling and solidifying the extrudate in a form of strand ([0018-0019]; melt-spinning and quenching to form monofilament).
Liu and Ryu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separators for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Liu with the teachings of Ryu to provide the pellet processing step iii) is produced in a form of pellets by cooling and solidifying an extrudate in a form of strand. Doing so would allow for recycling UHMWPE into a form with excellent strength and elongation (Ryu [0020]) in an environmentally friendly and low-cost manner (Ryu [0007]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754