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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 1-3 are currently amended. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 7-9 are newly added. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the claims. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polymer resin), and an adhesive layer (121) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1, [0049, 0076, 0097, 0123]). Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) is partially disposed on one side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) in a thickness direction thereof (Figure 1, [0097]). Lee further discloses that the separator (100) is impregnated by an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte is a 1.0 M solution of LiPF6 in a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) [0017, 0180]. Lee further discloses that the sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) may be a polyethylene-based porous polymer substrate, and the adhesive resin of the adhesive layer (130) may be a polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer-based polymer (PVDF) (Figure 1, [0076, 0163]). Lee further discloses that the thickness of the adhesive layer (121) may be between 0.1 µm and 3 µm [0091]. Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) is provided at a predetermined pitch so as to form a striped pattern (Figure 1, [0165]). Lee further discloses that a width of the adhesive layer, in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the adhesive layer (121) extends, is 4 mm [0165]. Lee further discloses that the thickness of the sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) may be 2 µm (Figure 1, [0163]).
Lee is silent to a thickness (T1) of the separator in a state where the separator is impregnated with an electrolyte solution and supplied with a pressure of 1 MPa in a thickness direction thereof, a thickness (T2) of the separator in a state where, after obtaining the thickness (T1), the separator is supplied with a pressure of 2 MPa in the thickness direction thereof for 1 hour, and the pressure is decreased to 0.5 MPa, and a thickness (T4) of the separator in a state where, after obtaining the thickness (T2), the separator is supplied with a pressure of 4 MPa in the thickness direction thereof, and the pressure is kept for 48 hours, wherein the separator satisfies inequalities (1) through (3):
1 ≤ T1/T0 ≤ 1.1
0.92 ≤ T2/T1 ≤ 1
0.6 ≤ T4/T1 ≤ 0.8.
However, the examiner notes that the instant application teaches that the separator may be impregnated by an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte may be a 1.0 M solution of LiPF6 in a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) [0024]. The instant application also teaches that the porous resin of the sheet-like substrate may preferably be polyethylene, and that the adhesive resin of the adhesive layer may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0031, 0053]. The instant application also teaches that the thickness of the adhesive layer may be between 2 µm and 3 µm, and that the thickness of the sheet-like substrate is between 1 µm and 20 µm [0051]. The instant application further teaches that the initial thickness (T0) of the separator may be between 2 µm and 30 µm [0058].
Therefore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are multiple embodiments of the separator (100) of Lee which may have a substantially identical structure to an embodiment of the instant application in terms of both composition (materials) and structure (thicknesses). As such, although Lee may not teach the measurement of the thickness of the separator (100) after various steps of applying pressure, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the structure and materials of the separator (100) of Lee are substantially identical to that of the instant application, if those steps of applying various pressures and then measuring the thickness of the separator were performed as suggested by instant Claim 1, the resulting thicknesses would be expected to be substantially identical to those of the instant application and would likewise be expected to meet all of the required inequalities above. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee further discloses that on the one side of the sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) where the adhesive layer (121) is disposed, the adhesive layer (121) has an average thickness of between 0.1 µm and 3 µm [0091]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell (lithium secondary battery), comprising: an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the separator (100) according to Claim 1; and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (electrolyte) (Figure 1, [0018, 0180]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1).
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee discloses the separator according to Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) occupies between 70% and 95% of the surface area of the separator [0089].
Lee is deficient in disclosing that the adhesive layer occupies a surface area at a ratio of 40% or higher and 60% or lower with respect to a surface of the sheet-like substance.
Kwon discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polyethylene), and an adhesive layer (120) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1a, [0047, 0049-0050, 0057]). Kwon further discloses that the adhesive layer (120) is partially disposed on one side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) in a thickness direction thereof (Figure 1a, [0047]). Kwon further discloses that on the side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) where the adhesive layer (120) is disposed, the adhesive layer (120) occupies a surface area at a ratio of between 20% and 80% with respect to a surface of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) (Figure 1a, [0055]). Kwon further discloses that when the coverage of the adhesive layer (120) is in such a range, the separator is capable of having good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions [0055].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the amount of surface area of the sheet-like substrate which is covered by the adhesive layer, an amount between 20% and 80%, as such an amount is known in the art as suitable for the coverage for a separator with an adhesive layer disposed on a sheet-like substrate and as Kwon teaches that such a range allows the separator to have good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A), as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0037631 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Lee (2015)” to distinguish from Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A)).
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Lee discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 5 as set forth above.
Lee is deficient in disclosing an assembled battery, comprising: plural cells aligned while being electrically connected to each other, wherein at least one of the plural cells is the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell according to Claim 5.
Lee (2015) discloses an assembled battery (battery module, 100), comprising: plural cells (battery cells, 10) aligned while being electrically connected to each other, wherein the plural cells (battery cells, 10) are non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cells (battery cells, 10) (Figure 1, [0005, 0034, 0039]). Lee (2015) further discloses that the assembled battery (battery module, 100) serves to provide a large capacity output for electrical devices such as a motor vehicle and the like (Figure 1, [0005]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize a plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries of Lee in an assembled battery such that the plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries are electrically connected to each other, in order to have a battery capacity capable of supporting an electrical device with a high power requirement, as taught by Lee (2015). Such a modification would be further obvious to the skilled artisan as it is known in the art as a common method of scaling the output capacity for use within an electrical device, as taught by Lee (2015). Furthermore, it has been held that merely scaling up a prior art process capable of being scaled up does not hold patentable weight (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0127328 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Kim” to distinguish from Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A)).
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the separator (100) has a sheet-like shape having a longer side and a shorter side, wherein the adhesive layer (121) extends at an angle to the longer side (Figure 1).
Lee is silent to the angle formed between the adhesive layer and the longer side.
Kim discloses a separator comprising a sheet-like substrate (separator, 120) on which a coating portions (150) is coated in a diagonal, stripe-shaped pattern (Figure 1, [0051-0052]). Kim further discloses that the coating portions (150) may be coated such that an angle (A) formed between the coating portions (150) and a side of the sheet-like substrate (separator, 120) is an acute angle between 5° and 60° (Figure 1, [0064]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the degree of the angle between the adhesive layer and longer side of Lee, between 5° and 60°, as it is known in the art as a suitable angle for a strip-shaped coating pattern to have when applied onto a substrate for a separator, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in shape of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 7):
Lee as modified by Kim discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 7 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 7, the acute angle is between 5° and 60°. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Maruhashi et al. (US 2023/0006263 A1).
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the separator (100) has a sheet-like shape having a longer side and a shorter side, wherein the adhesive layer (121) extends at diagonal to the longer side (Figure 1, [0165]).
Lee is deficient in disclosing that the adhesive layer is formed as having the striped pattern parallel to or perpendicular to the longer side.
Maruhashi discloses a separator on which an adhesive layer (S) may be formed, such that the separator is affixed to a negative electrode at a surface (Z) via the adhesive layer (S) (Figure 5, [0047]). Maruhashi further discloses that the adhesive layer (S) may be formed as a stripe which runs parallel to a longer side of the separator (see Figure 5), or a stripe which runs diagonal relative to the longer side of the separator (see Figure 6) [0329].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the arrangement of the adhesive layer pattern of Lee, a pattern wherein the stripes run parallel to the longer side of the separator, as it is known in the art that such an arrangement is suitable for an adhesive to be in on a separator, as taught by Maruhashi. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in shape of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/24/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A), Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1), Lee et al. (US 2015/0037631 A1), Lee et al. (US 2020/0127328 A1), and Maruhashi et al. (US 2023/0006263 A1).
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 EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724