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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the Korean Intellectual Property Office have been considered, and will be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they are provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1).
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 05/17/2023, 04/22/2024, and 09/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to show Figs. 1-6 and 10 as described in the specification (pgs. 7-8, "Description of Drawings"). Refer to MPEP § 601.01(g).II.A for requirements and further guidance: “If an application contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the omitted portion of the drawing(s) was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the drawing(s) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment should be submitted in response to the Office action and must comply with 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 217” (see MPEP § 601.01(g).II.A).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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
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