DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 28th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 response to the amendments received on April 28th, 2026:
Claims 1-18 are pending in the current application. The drawings were amended.
A corrected copy of the drawings were provided to include Figures 1-10. Further, the drawings filed on 05/17/2023 have been corrected in the USPTO system to show that all ten figures were correctly filed. Therefore, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn; and the drawings filed on 05/17/2023 are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1), and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1), and further in view of Miyoshi (JP. Pat. No. 2012033313 A). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Most et al. (DE. Pat. No. 102015200821 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Babinec et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8697290 B2). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikoma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200321586 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20090246614 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1), and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as further evidenced by Nam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180315964 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Kozuki (U.S. Pat. No. 20070196730 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues a lack of motivation for combining primary reference Uchida with the teachings of Honda or Jang (see pg. 6 of the “Remarks”); applicant argues that Uchida teaches a separator having a structure akin to the claimed nanofiber scaffold, while Honda nor Jang suggests said structure. Applicant further argues fundamental differences between the teachings of Uchida, Honda, and Jang.
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
In this case, Uchida is relied upon to teach an organic/inorganic composite porous layer comprising a nanofiber scaffold structure and inorganic particles ([0016], [0055], [0092]). As Uchida fails to teach the inorganic particles comprising a BET specific surface area as claimed, Honda is relied upon to teach a separator for a lithium ion secondary battery (para. 2) comprising inorganic particles with a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 50 m2/g (para. 25), within and overlapping the claimed range. Further, as Uchida fails to teach the binder polymer present in the claimed amount, Jang et al. is relied upon to teach an organic/inorganic composite separator comprising a polymer binder present in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt.% (para. 12-14) of the organic/inorganic composite porous layer, within and overlapping the claimed range.
As Uchida is relied upon to teach said nanofiber scaffold structure, Honda and Jang are not required to also teach said structure to establish obviousness; to provide a proper prima facie case of obviousness, Honda and Jong must be analogous art to the claimed invention and the modification must include a reasonable motivation. In this case, Honda and Jong are deemed analogous art as they are from the same field endeavor: directly related to a separator for a lithium ion secondary battery further comprising inorganic particles (further supported by shared classifications, i.e., H01M50/446, H01M10/0525). Further, a reasonable motivation is provided: Honda et al. teaches that said BET specific surface area provides improved binding performance between the inorganic particles corresponding to long cycle performance in lithium ion secondary batteries (para. 31). Further, Jang provides a separator for a lithium secondary battery with improved binding between the separator and a coating layer, improved processability, improved cell safety, and an improved manufacturing method thereof (Jang et al., para. 8). Therefore, the rejection is deemed proper and applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues no reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”). Applicant compares their Comparative Example 6 to Honda (lacking a nanofiber scaffold structure) and their Comparative Example 1 to Jang (including a binder polymer in the claimed amount but lacking the nanofiber scaffold structure); and argues that said configuration exhibits undesirable results.
“Reasonable expectation of success can be implicitly shown via the prior art teachings or as part of the obviousness analysis. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1376-77, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2143.02(I)).
“Conclusive proof of efficacy is not required to show a reasonable expectation of success. OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375, 1385, 2019 USPQ2d 379681 (Fed. Cir. 2019)” (see MPEP 2143.02(I)).
“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, but at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success may support a conclusion of nonobviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)” (see MPEP 2143.02(II)). Applicant is attacking references Honda and Jang individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references Uchida, Honda, and Jang. 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 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As described above, the combination of Uchida, Honda, and Jang teach all limitations of the claimed invention in which a reasonably expectation of success is implicitly shown based on the similarities between the combined references and the motivation provided. Uchida teaches a separator comprising inorganic particles as claimed, while Honda et al. is only relied upon to teach a BET specific surface area of said inorganic particles; further, Uchida teaches a separator comprising a binder polymer, while Jang is relied upon to teach a content of said polymer binder. Therefore, the proposed modification does not render Uchida unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and the principle operation is unchanged. Therefore, a motivation and reasonable expectation of success is present. Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 12, applicant argues a lack of motivation and no reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”). As described above, Uchida teaches said nanofiber scaffold structure; therefore, Ikoma is not required to also teach said structure to establish obviousness. Ikoma is deemed analogous art based on presence in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention: directly related to a separator for a lithium ion battery (further shown by shared classifications, i.e., H01M 10/0525, H01M 50/491, H01M 50/489). Applicant attacks reference Ikoma and points out differences between the structure of the porous layer of Ikoma and the claimed porous layer; however, Ikoma is not relied upon to teach the claimed porous layer. As described above, Uchida teaches the claimed organic/inorganic composite porous layer. As Uchida fails to teach that the porous layer is prepared using a nanoparticle dispersion device using beads having a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, Ikoma is relied upon to teach said limitations in which the beads have a diameter of 0.1 mm to 1 mm as taught by Ikoma et al., within and overlapping the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide uniform dispersion of the particles (para. 57). Therefore, a reasonable motivation and expectation of success is present.
Applicant further suggests that their Comparative Example 5 discloses zirconia beads with a diameter of 0.8 mm, falling within the range of 0.1-1 mm of Ikoda, but lying outside of the narrower range of Claim 12; applicant argues that a diameter outside of the claimed range provides undesirable results (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”).
"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.I).
“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)” (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
“Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range” (see MPEP 716.02(d)).
In this case, obviousness is established by the overlapping ranges of the zirconia bead diameter of Ikoda and the claimed invention. Further, arguments of criticality or unexpected results must be evidenced by an appropriate affidavit/declaration.
Therefore, all claim limitations are taught by the prior art and can be combined with a reasonable motivation and expectation of success; and applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
The previous rejections are maintained.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) (“Uchida”)
Previously Cited Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) (“Honda et al.”)
Previously Cited Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) (“Jang et al.”)
Previously Cited Miyoshi (JP. Pat. No. 2012033313 A) (“Miyoshi”)
Previously Cited Most et al. (DE. Pat. No. 102015200821 A1) (“Most et al.”)
Previously Cited Babinec et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8697290 B2) (“Babinec et al.”)
Previously Cited Ikoma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200321586 A1) (“Ikoma et al.”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20090246614 A1) (“Kim et al.”)
Previously Cited Nam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180315964 A1) (“Nam et al.”)
Previously Cited Kozuki (U.S. Pat. No. 20070196730 A1) (“Kozuki”)
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1), and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Uchida teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery (para. 1), comprising:
a porous polymer substrate ([0014]-[0015] teach a microporous membrane substrate as a base material for the separator, the microporous layer can include polyolefin resin (polymer) as a main component); and
an organic/inorganic composite porous layer ([0092] teaches a functional layer or composite layer comprising organic fiber and inorganic filler, [0054] teaches pores or voids within the functional layer) disposed on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate ([0014] teaches that the functional layer can be formed on one or both sides of the substrate),
wherein the organic/inorganic composite porous layer comprises a nanofiber scaffold ([0016] teaches the functional layer comprising water-insoluble organic fibers such as cellulose nanofibers forming a binding or entangled structure), inorganic particles and a binder polymer ([0055], [0092]),
wherein, in the organic/inorganic composite porous layer, the inorganic particles are present in voids of the nanofiber scaffold ([0054] teaches that the inorganic filler is contained in the functional layer (hence present in the voids of the nanofiber structure) functioning to improve the pore-opening property and ion permeability of the functional layer; as further support, based on the definition of filler, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the filler to function to fill a space/void within the functional layer, [0055] teaches that the inorganic filler can be inorganic particles).
Uchida does not teach that the inorganic particles have a BET specific surface area of 20 m2/g to 75 m2/g.
Honda et al. teaches a separator for a lithium ion secondary battery (para. 2) comprising inorganic particles with a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 50 m2/g (para. 25) to provide improved binding performance and long cycle performance (para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inorganic particles of Uchida to include a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 50 m2/g, within and overlapping the claimed range of 20 m2/g to 75 m2/g. "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.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable BET specific surface area of the inorganic particles in which provides improved binding performance and long cycle performance as described above.
Uchida does not teach that the binder polymer is present in an amount of 2 wt. % to 5 wt. % based on 100 wt. % of the total weight of the organic/inorganic composite porous layer.
Jang et al. teaches a porous coating layer forming an organic/inorganic composite separator comprising a polymer binder present in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt.% (para. 12-14) of the organic/inorganic composite porous layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inorganic/composite porous layer of Uchida to include a binder polymer present in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt. % based on the total weight of the organic/inorganic composite porous layer as taught by Jang et al, within and overlapping the claimed range of 2 wt. % to 5 wt. % (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved binding between the separator and a coating layer, improved processability, improved cell safety, and an improved manufacturing method thereof (Jang et al., para. 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the separator of Uchida is modified by Honda et al. to include the inorganic particles having a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 50 m2/g (para. 25), within and overlapping the claimed range of 30 m2/g to 75 m2/g (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved binding performance and long cycle performance within the separator (Honda et al., para. 31)
Regarding Claim 3, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches that the nanofiber scaffold is hydrophilic ([0016] teaches a structure analogous to a nanofiber scaffold as applied to Claim 1, comprising entangled cellulose nanofibers in which cellulose is inherently hydrophilic). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Uchida to provide a high-strength separator applicable to lithium batteries (para. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches that the nanofiber scaffold (entangled nanofiber structure, para. 16) comprises organic fiber (cellulose nanofibers, para. 43). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Uchida to provide a high-strength separator applicable to lithium batteries (para. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. As applied to Claim 1 and Claim 5, Uchida teaches that the organic fiber comprises cellulose (para. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Uchida to provide a high-strength separator applicable to lithium batteries (para. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches that the inorganic particles have an average particle size (diameter) of 0.8 nm to 3000 nm (para. 56), overlapping the claimed range of 20 nm to 40 nm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Uchida teaches that the average particle size within said range avoids pore clogging, provides improved ion permeability, and avoids a decrease in strength due to stress concentration caused by the increase in the pore size (para. 56). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 11, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches that the separator comprises a binder polymer comprising polyethylene oxide in which is preferable because it has a characteristic of easily opening holes when it is combined with a water-insoluble organic fiber (cellulose) (para. 51). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 13, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches that the organic/inorganic composite porous layer further comprises a dispersant (para. 101-102). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Uchida to provide a high-strength separator applicable to lithium batteries (para. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 15, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Uchida teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly in which comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode and the separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 1, 80). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Uchida to provide a high-strength separator applicable to lithium batteries (para. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1), and further in view of Miyoshi (JP. Pat. No. 2012033313 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Uchida does not teach that the nanofiber scaffold is hydrophobic.
Miyoshi teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery (para. 4, 9) comprising cellulose fiber in which is surface-modified (surface-treated and modified) with a silane coupling agent (para. 41). Surface treating the polymer fiber can affect the wettability to the electrolyte, electrolyte retention ability, and output performance (para. 21, 37). Miyoshi describes that the hydroxyl groups of the cellulose fibers are modified with a silane coupling agent (para. 41) in which the inherently hydrophilic hydroxyl groups are modified by the inherently hydrophobic silane groups forming hydrophobic cellulose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nanofibers forming the nanofiber scaffold of Uchida to include surface modification with a silane agent as taught by Miyoshi inherently forming a hydrophobic nanofiber material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification in consideration of the affect to the wettability to the electrolyte, electrolyte retention ability, and output performance as taught by Miyoshi.
Regarding Claim 7, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above.
Uchida does not teach that the cellulose is surface-modified with a hydrophobic material.
Miyoshi teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery (para. 4, 9) comprising cellulose fiber in which is surface-modified (surface-treated and modified) with a silane coupling agent (para. 41). Surface treating the polymer fiber can affect the wettability to the electrolyte, electrolyte retention ability, and output performance (para. 21, 37). Miyoshi describes that the hydroxyl groups of the cellulose fibers are modified with a silane coupling agent (para. 41) in which the inherently hydrophilic hydroxyl groups are modified by the inherently hydrophobic silane groups forming hydrophobic cellulose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification in consideration of the wettability to the electrolyte, electrolyte retention ability, and output performance as taught by Miyoshi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cellulose of Uchida to include surface modification with a silane agent as taught by Miyoshi, inherently forming a hydrophobic nanofiber material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification in consideration of the affect to the wettability to the electrolyte, electrolyte retention ability, and output performance as taught by Miyoshi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Most et al. (DE. Pat. No. 102015200821 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Uchida does not teach that the inorganic fiber comprises a carbon fiber, a boron nitride fiber, or a combination thereof.
Most et al. teaches a separator for high temperature batteries comprising carbon fibers formed in a matrix framework (scaffold structure) providing a separator that is temperature resistant at high temperatures (para. 25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nanofiber scaffold of Uchida to further include inorganic fibers such as carbon fibers as taught by Most et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a separator that is temperature resistant at high temperatures as described above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Babinec et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8697290 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Uchida does not teach that the inorganic particles comprise fumed alumina, fumed silica, fumed titanium dioxide, or two or more of them.
Babinec et al. teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery (para. 11) comprising an inorganic filler component comprising fumed silica in which provides a high surface area, generally contains a high purity silica material, and is often hydrophilic and can be wetted easily by most electrolyte solvents and polar polymers (para. 37. of “Description”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the inorganic particles of Uchida to include fumed silica as described by Babinec et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a separator layer having good lamination strength, porosity, and conductivity (para. 7 of “Background/Summary”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikoma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200321586 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Uchida does not teach that the organic/inorganic composite porous layer is prepared using a nanoparticle dispersion device using beads having a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm.
Ikoma et al. teaches a coating liquid forming a porous layer in which is dispersed using a bead mill (nanoparticle dispersion device) using beads having a diameter of 0.1 mm to 1 mm (para. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the organic/inorganic composite porous layer of Uchida to further include preparation by a nanoparticle dispersion device using beads having a diameter of 0.1 mm to 1 mm as taught by Ikoma et al., within and overlapping the claimed range 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide uniform dispersion of the particles (para. 57).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20090246614 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Uchida does not teach that the surface of the organic/inorganic composite porous layer has an arithmetic mean roughness of 100 nm to 900 nm.
Kim et al. teaches a porous layer for a separator of a lithium secondary battery with an average (arithmetic mean) roughness of 0.3 μm to 1.5 μm (300 nm to 1500 nm); the average roughness within said range provides sufficient absorption of the electrolyte and improved cycle characteristics of the battery at low temperature (para. 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the porous layer of Uchida to include an arithmetic mean roughness of 300 nm to 1500 nm as taught by Kim et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 100 nm to 900 nm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide sufficient absorption of the electrolyte and improved cycle characteristics of the battery at low temperature as described above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1), and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as further evidenced by Nam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180315964 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Uchida teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly in which the electrode assembly is wound to form a wound electrode body (para. 80).
Uchida does not teach that the lithium secondary battery and electrode assembly having a cylindrical shape.
Honda et al. teaches a wound type lithium secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly in which is not particularly limited and can include a cylindrical shape (Claim 1, para. 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium secondary battery and wound electrode assembly of Uchida to include a cylindrical shape as disclosed by Honda et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable shape of the wound electrode assembly; as further evidence of advantages of a cylindrical assembly, Nam et al. teaches that a jelly-roll (wound) assembly can easily be received in a cylindrical secondary battery case and further provides a large capacity and improved structural stability (para. 6-7).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP. Pat. No. 2020145008 A) in view of Honda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140287295 A1) and Jang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180040868 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Kozuki (U.S. Pat. No. 20070196730 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above.
Uchida does not teach that the cylindrical lithium secondary battery does not have an electrode tab.
Kozuki teaches a tab-less structure (comprising no electrode tab) of a cylindrical lithium rechargeable (secondary) battery in which the current distribution becomes uniform both in the positive electrode and negative electrode, and the discharge characteristic of the battery improves (para. 7, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium secondary battery of Kozuki to include a structure in which does not comprise an electrode tab as taught by Kozuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide uniform current distribution in the positive and negative electrode, and improved discharge characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claim 18, Uchida is modified by Honda et al. and Jang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above.
Uchida does not teach that the cylindrical lithium secondary battery has a diameter of 22 mm or more.
Kozuki teaches a cylindrical lithium secondary battery comprising a diameter of 26 mm (para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium secondary battery of Uchida to include a diameter of 26 mm as taught by Kozuki, within the claimed range of 22 mm or more. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a suitable diameter of an electrode assembly in which high energy density and structural stability can be achieved.
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights