DETAILED ACTION
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In response to the amendment received 04/09/2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 9-11, and 16
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3-8 and 12-15
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(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014104687A1, hereafter Kim (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), in view of Published Application US20130224554A1, hereafter Hong, and further in view of Published Application US20150017511A1, hereafter Schmitz.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a separator for a secondary battery (page 7, 2nd paragraph, "an organic-inorganic porous separation membrane"; page 6, 2nd paragraph, "a secondary battery including the organic/inorganic porous separation membrane"), the separator comprising:
a porous polymer substrate (page 7, 2nd paragraph, "porous polyolefin substrate and an active layer...organic-inorganic hybrid composite") and a ceramic layer (page 7, 2nd paragraph, active layer with inorganic particles; page 12, 2nd paragraph, inorganic particles are hollow silica particles) provided on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (abstract, active layer coated on the surface of the substrate),
wherein
the ceramic layer includes a ceramic composite (page 7, 2nd paragraph, "organic-inorganic composite"),
the ceramic composite comprises:
a hollow portion (page 12, 2nd paragraph, inorganic particles are hollow silica particles);
a ceramic shell surrounding the hollow portion (page 12, 2nd paragraph, inorganic particles are hollow silica particles); and
a doping material dispersed in the ceramic shell (page 7, 2nd paragraph, "the active sites of inorganic particles on the surface of the substrate are modified with a fatty acid of C6 to C36, an oxidized wax, or an acrylic acid-based polymer"), and
the hollow portion is in a vacuum state (page 13, 1st paragraph, "The above-mentioned hollow silica particles contain air or vacuum").
Kim is silent on wherein the ceramic layer further includes a binder, and the binder is attached to a portion or an entirety of a surface of the ceramic composite.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Hong discloses wherein the ceramic layer further includes a binder ([0052] 5 to 10 parts by weight of the organic binder; [0048] organic binder may be a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer which may allow for excellent electrolyte impregnation and thus efficient battery output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Kim to include a PVDF based organic binder in the ceramic layer in order to allow for excellent electrolyte impregnation and thus efficient battery output, as suggested by Hong. The examiner notes the presence of both the binder and ceramic composite together in the same layer would necessarily result in the binder being attached to a portion or an entirety of a surface of the ceramic composite, as claimed, since the binder would be functioning to hold the ceramic layer together by connecting the hollow silica particles to one another.
Kim is further silent on wherein the doping material further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of polyurethane (PU) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
In the analogous art of battery separators, Schmitz discloses wherein the doping material includes at least one selected from the group consisting of polyurethane (PU) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0080] PTFE, polyurethane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Kim to further include a binder doping material in the ceramic shell material such as PTFE or polyurethane, as disclosed by Schmitz, in order to bind together the silica constituents of the hollow shell, and further as combination of known elements by known methods that yield a predictable result is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 (I) (A)).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the ceramic shell includes SiO2 (page 12, 2nd paragraph, inorganic particles are hollow silica particles).
Regarding claim 3, Kim is silent on wherein an average thickness of the ceramic shell is 1 nm to 1 µm.
As the density of the ceramic particles is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the ceramic shell, with the density of the ceramic particles increasing as the thickness of the ceramic shell is increased, the thickness of the ceramic shell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the ceramic shell cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the ceramic shell in the invention of Kim to obtain the desired density of the hollow silica particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses herein a content of the doping material is 0.5 to 40 weight percentage (wt%) based on a total weight of the ceramic shell (page 18 "the content of inorganic particles in the organic-inorganic hybrid composite is preferably 60 to 99.5 wt% relative to the total weight of the composite" - thus, the doping material is present at 0.5 to 40 wt%), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 6, Kim is silent on wherein the ceramic shell further includes at least one curable resin selected from the group consisting of a polyester resin and a polyimide resin.
In the analogous art of battery separators, Schmitz discloses wherein the ceramic layer further includes at least one curable resin selected from the group consisting of a polyester resin and a polyimide resin ([0089] 1.5 to 20% by weight of polyester or polyimide binder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Kim to use 1.5% by weight to 20% by weight of a polyester or polyimide resin binder as disclosed by Schmitz as a selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim further discloses wherein a content of the curable resin is 1 to 15 weight percentage (wt%) based on a total weight of the ceramic layer (Schmitz, [0089] 1.5 to 20% by weight of polyester or polyimide binder).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein an average particle size of the ceramic material is 10 nm to 5 µm (page 12, 1st paragraph, particle diameter of 0.0001-10 µm).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein an average thickness of the ceramic layer is 5 to 10 µm (page 27, 2nd to last paragraph, 0.1-100µm thickness of active layer).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses wherein the porous polymer substrate includes polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) (page 8, 2nd paragraph, porous polyolefin substrate is polyethylene separator or polypropylene separator).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim discloses wherein the binder includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Hong, [0048] organic binder may be a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a secondary battery (page 6, 2nd paragraph, secondary battery) comprising: a positive electrode (abstract, cathode); a negative electrode (abstract, anode); and a separator for a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication WO2014104687A1, hereafter Kim (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), in view of Published Application US20130224554A1, hereafter Hong, and further in view of Published Application US20150017511A1, hereafter Schmitz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published Application US20210280943A1, hereafter Hong ’943.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the known problem of coated materials easily peeling off from the substrate in an organic-inorganic composite membrane (page 4, 1st paragraph).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the ceramic composite has a flexural strength of 10 to 20 MPa.
In the analogous art of composite battery separators, Hong ‘943 discloses it is known to control the flexural strength (bending strength) of a composite separator ([0072]), and that peel strength tends to be inversely related to bending strength ([0044]).
As the rigidity and peel strength of the ceramic composite is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the flexural strength, with the rigidity of the composite increasing as the flexural strength is increased, the peel strength decreasing as the flexural strength is increased, and the peel strength increasing as the flexural strength is decreased, the flexural strength of the ceramic composite would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed flexural strength of the ceramic composite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flexural strength of the ceramic composite in the invention of Kim to obtain the desired balance of rigidity and peel strength of the coating of the ceramic composite (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that none of the cited references discloses or suggests a binder separately from the doping material, the examiner disagrees and notes, as stated in the rejection, that the invention of Kim was modified to include the PVDF based binder of Hong, and further modified to include the polyurethane and/or polytetrafluoroethylene binders of Schmitz.
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights