DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/087713, “SEPARATOR, LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/22/22 and is the Continuation of a PCT application filed on 8/12/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 11/19/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/26/25 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment. The indefiniteness rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862) and Uemura (US 2013/0260207). Supporting evidence is provided by Shon (US 2015/0064560).
Regarding claims 1, Wood teaches a separator (paragraph [0002], Wood claim 1) comprising: a base film (“base polymer membrane”, paragraph [0002]) and an organic-inorganic hybrid layer located on at least one surface of the base film (“porous layers containing inorganic materials”, paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0016]), wherein the organic-inorganic hybrid layer comprises inorganic particles and an organic binder (abstract; paragraph [0052]); the inorganic particles are made of first inorganic particles with a microscale median diameter (“100 nanometers to 2 microns”, paragraph [0048]; e.g. “1.4 microns”, paragraph [0052]) and second inorganic particles with a nanoscale median diameter (“less than or equal to 100 nanometers”, paragraph [0048]; e.g. “20 nm”, paragraph [0052]), and a ratio of a median diameter value D1 of the first inorganic particles in μm to a median diameter value D2 of the second inorganic particles in nm satisfies 2≤D2/D1≤55 (paragraph [0052], where 20 [nm] / 1.4 [microns] = 14.2).
Regarding the 11/26/25 amendment to claim 1, Wood further teaches wherein the first inorganic particles or second inorganic particles may be a conventional inorganic material such as silica or alumina (paragraph [0016]), but does not appear to teach wherein the first inorganic particles or the second inorganic particles are selected from (SiOx)(H2O)y or (Mc+)b(SiOz)a−, wherein, 0<x≤2, 0≤y≤2, y =1 or 2, z=3 or 4, a=2 or 4, b×c=a, and M comprises one or more of lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or aluminum.
In the battery art, Uemura teaches a protective layer for a separator (Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]), wherein the protective layer comprises inorganic filler particles such as alumina, silica, or alternatively potassium silicate (paragraph [0091]). Uemura further teaches that a layer having desirable mechanical strength may be formed using these inorganic particles (paragraph [0092]). It is noted that potassium silicate is understood to conventionally have the chemical formula K2SiO3 (for supporting evidence only, see Shon at paragraph [0147]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the alumina or silica of Uemura with an inorganic material reading on the formula recited in claim 1, such as potassium silicate as taught by Uemura, as such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known inorganic filler material for another to yield predictable results. Moreover, such a modification may provide additional benefits such as desirable mechanical strength and/or porosity as taught by Uemura; therefore, a TSM type rationale for obviousness also exists.
Claims 5 and 18 are found to be obvious over the combination of Wood and Uemura since Uemura teaches potassium silicate, corresponding toe the K2SiO3 of the Markush group.
Regarding claim 2, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood appears to illustrate inorganic particles protruding from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer at Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: the median diameter value D1 of the first inorganic particles in μm is 1 to 5 (e.g. “1.4 microns”, paragraph [0052]), and the median diameter value D2 of the second inorganic particles in nm is 10 to 55 (e.g. “20 nm”, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. It is noted that Wood further teaches wherein the first and/or second inorganic particles are SiO2 (“silica” paragraph [0016], understood to refer to SiO2).
Regarding claim 6, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a mass m1 of the first inorganic particles and a mass m2 of the second inorganic particles satisfy 0.5≤m1/m2≤4 (paragraph [0047] teaches the inorganic particles being 20% to 50% nanoparticles, with the balance [80% to 50%] being microparticles, i.e. 1 ≤ m1/m2 ≤ 4).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a ratio A1/A2 of a mass percent A1 of the organic binder to a mass percent A2 of the inorganic particles lies within the range of (0.1 to 25): 100, and wherein in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a mass percent of the inorganic particles is within the range of 80% to 99.9%, a mass percent of the organic binder is within the range of 0.1% to 20%, based on a total mass of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer (“binder systems at 6 wt% [implying 94% inorganic materials]”, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: the front side and reverse side of the base film each are coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, and a mass percent of inorganic particles in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the front side of the base film is not less than a mass percent of inorganic particles in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the reverse side of the base film (paragraphs [0016, 0049] suggest that the same coating may be applied to both sides of the separator; thus, the mass percent of inorganic particles on the front side is not less than the mass percent of inorganic particle on the reverse side); and the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the front side of the base film is in contact with a positive electrode, and the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the reverse side of the base film is in contact with a negative electrode (this recitation describes an intended use rather than a structural feature of the claimed separator).
Regarding claim 14, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches the separator as a subcomponent of a lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207) and Tanaka (JP 2015-076289).
Regarding claim 2, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood appears to illustrate inorganic particles protruding from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer at Fig. 6, but does not explicitly state that a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Tanaka teaches an organic-inorganic layer comprising inorganic particles disposed on a base film, wherein a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer (see Fig. 4) for the benefit of enhancing a holding function of the separator (T040).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the organic-inorganic layer of Wood such that a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer for the benefit of enhancing a holding function of the separator as taught by Tanaka.
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207) and Adachi (US 2023/0065518).
Regarding claim 4, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl, or an alkali metal salt of sulfonic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl, and further optionally at least one of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC-Na), polyacrylic acid sodium (PAA-Na), sodium polystyrene sulfonate (PSS-Na), or sodium alginate (SA).
In the battery art, Adachi teaches organic binders for battery separators (paragraphs [0002-0003]), wherein the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl (paragraphs [0021, 0092]) and/or sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0359]), with the binders providing excellent adherence properties (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an organic binder wherein the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl and/or sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, since such binders may provide excellent adherence properties as taught by Adachi.
Regarding claim 9, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood teaches an exemplary base film thickness of 12 μm (paragraph [0052]), but does not appear to teach wherein: a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm.
However, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Moreover, in the battery art, Adachi teaches an embodiment wherein a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm (paragraph [0372] teaches 12 μm thick base film with 2.5 μm thick organic-inorganic hybrid layer, values lying within the claimed range; see also paragraph [0003] clarifying that the “porous membrane layer” of Adachi is analogous to the claimed organic-inorganic hybrid layer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the Wood separator such that a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm, since this relative scale is suitable for producing a composite layered separator with appropriately sized base film and organic-inorganic hybrid layer and as taught by Adachi.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207) and Lee (US 2007/0082261).
Regarding claim 10, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: a front side of the base film comprises a front coating region and a front blank region, and an areal ratio between the front coating region and the front blank region is (1 to 3): 1; and a reverse side of the base film comprises a reverse coating region and a reverse blank region, and an areal ratio between the reverse coating region and the reverse blank region is (0.5 to 1): 1, and the front coating region and the reverse coating region are surface-coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Lee teaches that a coating (Fig. 1A item 40,40’) on a separator base layer (Fig. 1A item 30,30’) may be configured to coat an area of 50% or less of the base layer for the benefit of facilitating ion conductivity (paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Wood such that the organic-inorganic hybrid layer coats 50% or less of the base film for the benefit of improving ionic conductivity as taught by Lee. The claimed ranges for the areal ratio of the front and reverse coating regions each include 50% coverage; therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious.
Claims 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207), Lee (US 2007/0082261) and Roumi (US 2013/0224632).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the cited art remains as applied to claim 10 or 1, respectively [claim 1 includes the majority of the features of independent claim 19]. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: on a plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the base film, a projection of the front blank region and a projection of the reverse coating region overlap with each other, and a projection of the reverse blank region and a projection of the front coating region overlap with each other; and the front coating region and the reverse coating region are surface-coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Roumi teaches a separator comprising two mechanically supporting coating layers disposed on an inner membrane (Fig. 3, paragraph [0206]). Roumi further teaches that the coating layers may include coating regions and blank regions [apertures] therein, such that blank regions of one layer overlap with the coating region of the opposite layer (Fig. 1). Roumi further teaches that such a structure provides various advantages such as excellent ion transport properties, dendrite control, and structural favorability (abstract).
It would have been obvious to configure the separator such that the claimed coating-blank overlap arrangement is present for the benefit of providing desirable properties such as excellent ion transport properties, dendrite control, and/or structural favorability as taught by Roumi.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207), Xiao (US 2021/0194095), Yeh (USP 11,575,180) and Ryu (USP 10,056,589).
Regarding claim 13, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches that the inventive separators possess “low shrinkage” (paragraph [0002]), but is silent as to characterizing the shrinkage of the separator relative to a base film alone, and therefore does not teach wherein a thermal shrinkage rate of the separator is 70% to 75% lower than a thermal shrinkage rate of the base film.
In the battery art:
Xiao teaches that a desirable separator may be configured to have 30 to 75% lower high temperature shrinkage compared to a purely polymeric membrane (paragraph [0022]);
Yeh teaches a separator provided with a heat resistant layer may have a heat shrinkage of 15%, whereas a Comparative separator without a heat resistant layer may have a heat shrinkage of >50% (Table 1), noting that (50-15)/50 = 70%;
Ryu teaches a composite separator which has a thermal shrinkage value of 3 compared to an uncoated fabric separator having a thermal shrinkage value of 10, noting that (10-3)-3 = 70%.
Claim 12 is found to be obvious over the cited art because the claim merely sets forth a known desirable goal (thermal shrinkage reduced compared to an uncoated separator to a particular desirable range), without specifying any specific structure not taught by the cited art which facilitates the known desirable property, and the prior art demonstrates that the claimed property has been achieved using comparable techniques including coating a base membrane with an inorganic layer. Absent any evidence that the Wood separator i) would not possess the claimed property, and ii) could not be modified to yield the claimed property in view of the cited secondary references, the claimed invention is found to be obvious.
Claims 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Uemura (US 2013/0260207) and Cho (US 2021/0305658).
Regarding claim 15-17, The cited art remains as applied to claim 14. Wood teaches the separator as a subcomponent of a lithium-ion battery, but does not expressly teach the battery as a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery.
In the battery art, Cho teaches that a lithium battery may be a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0116]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the lithium-ion battery of Wood as a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery, for the benefit of making practical use of the battery as taught by Cho.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862) and Fan (US 2016/0149196).
Regarding claims 1, Wood teaches a separator (paragraph [0002], Wood claim 1) comprising: a base film (“base polymer membrane”, paragraph [0002]) and an organic-inorganic hybrid layer located on at least one surface of the base film (“porous layers containing inorganic materials”, paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0016]), wherein the organic-inorganic hybrid layer comprises inorganic particles and an organic binder (abstract; paragraph [0052]); the inorganic particles are made of first inorganic particles with a microscale median diameter (“100 nanometers to 2 microns”, paragraph [0048]; e.g. “1.4 microns”, paragraph [0052]) and second inorganic particles with a nanoscale median diameter (“less than or equal to 100 nanometers”, paragraph [0048]; e.g. “20 nm”, paragraph [0052]), and a ratio of a median diameter value D1 of the first inorganic particles in μm to a median diameter value D2 of the second inorganic particles in nm satisfies 2≤D2/D1≤55 (paragraph [0052], where 20 [nm] / 1.4 [microns] = 14.2).
Regarding the 11/26/25 amendment to claim 1, Wood further teaches wherein the first inorganic particles or second inorganic particles may be a conventional inorganic material such as silica or alumina (paragraph [0016]), but does not appear to teach wherein the first inorganic particles or the second inorganic particles are selected from (SiOx)(H2O)y or (Mc+)b(SiOz)a−, wherein, 0<x≤2, 0≤y≤2, y =1 or 2, z=3 or 4, a=2 or 4, b×c=a, and M comprises one or more of lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or aluminum.
In the battery art, Fan teaches a resistive/thermal interrupt layer for a separator (Figs. 1F, 1G), wherein the resistive/thermal interrupt layer comprises inorganic filler particles such as alumina, silica, or alternatively sodium silicate (NaSiO3), magnesium silicate (MgSiO3) (paragraph [0153]). Fan further teaches that a layer having desirable porous structure may be formed using these inorganic particles (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the alumina or silica of Wood with an inorganic material reading on the formula recited in claim 1, such as sodium silicate or magnesium silicate as taught by Fan, as such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known inorganic filler material for another to yield predictable results. Moreover, such a modification may provide additional benefits such as desirable mechanical strength and/or porosity as taught by Fan; therefore, a TSM type rationale for obviousness also exists.
Regarding claim 2, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood appears to illustrate inorganic particles protruding from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer at Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: the median diameter value D1 of the first inorganic particles in μm is 1 to 5 (e.g. “1.4 microns”, paragraph [0052]), and the median diameter value D2 of the second inorganic particles in nm is 10 to 55 (e.g. “20 nm”, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. It is noted that Wood further teaches wherein the first and/or second inorganic particles are SiO2 (“silica” paragraph [0016], understood to refer to SiO2).
Regarding claim 6, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a mass m1 of the first inorganic particles and a mass m2 of the second inorganic particles satisfy 0.5≤m1/m2≤4 (paragraph [0047] teaches the inorganic particles being 20% to 50% nanoparticles, with the balance [80% to 50%] being microparticles, i.e. 1 ≤ m1/m2 ≤ 4).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a ratio A1/A2 of a mass percent A1 of the organic binder to a mass percent A2 of the inorganic particles lies within the range of (0.1 to 25): 100, and wherein in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, a mass percent of the inorganic particles is within the range of 80% to 99.9%, a mass percent of the organic binder is within the range of 0.1% to 20%, based on a total mass of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer (“binder systems at 6 wt% [implying 94% inorganic materials]”, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches wherein: the front side and reverse side of the base film each are coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer, and a mass percent of inorganic particles in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the front side of the base film is not less than a mass percent of inorganic particles in the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the reverse side of the base film (paragraphs [0016, 0049] suggest that the same coating may be applied to both sides of the separator; thus, the mass percent of inorganic particles on the front side is not less than the mass percent of inorganic particle on the reverse side); and the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the front side of the base film is in contact with a positive electrode, and the organic-inorganic hybrid layer on the reverse side of the base film is in contact with a negative electrode (this recitation describes an intended use rather than a structural feature of the claimed separator).
Regarding claim 14, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches the separator as a subcomponent of a lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196) and Tanaka (JP 2015-076289).
Regarding claim 2, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood appears to illustrate inorganic particles protruding from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer at Fig. 6, but does not explicitly state that a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Tanaka teaches an organic-inorganic layer comprising inorganic particles disposed on a base film, wherein a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer (see Fig. 4) for the benefit of enhancing a holding function of the separator (T040).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the organic-inorganic layer of Wood such that a part of the first inorganic particles and/or the second inorganic particles protrude from a surface of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer for the benefit of enhancing a holding function of the separator as taught by Tanaka.
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196) and Adachi (US 2023/0065518).
Regarding claim 4, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl, or an alkali metal salt of sulfonic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl, and further optionally at least one of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC-Na), polyacrylic acid sodium (PAA-Na), sodium polystyrene sulfonate (PSS-Na), or sodium alginate (SA).
In the battery art, Adachi teaches organic binders for battery separators (paragraphs [0002-0003]), wherein the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl (paragraphs [0021, 0092]) and/or sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0359]), with the binders providing excellent adherence properties (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an organic binder wherein the organic binder is at least one of an alkali metal salt of carboxylic acid containing a hydroxyl and/or a carboxyl and/or sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, since such binders may provide excellent adherence properties as taught by Adachi.
Regarding claim 9, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood teaches an exemplary base film thickness of 12 μm (paragraph [0052]), but does not appear to teach wherein: a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm.
However, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Moreover, in the battery art, Adachi teaches an embodiment wherein a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm (paragraph [0372] teaches 12 μm thick base film with 2.5 μm thick organic-inorganic hybrid layer, values lying within the claimed range; see also paragraph [0003] clarifying that the “porous membrane layer” of Adachi is analogous to the claimed organic-inorganic hybrid layer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the Wood separator such that a thickness d1 of the organic-inorganic hybrid layer is 20% to 50% of a total thickness d of the separator, and the total thickness d of the separator is 6 to 25 μm, since this relative scale is suitable for producing a composite layered separator with appropriately sized base film and organic-inorganic hybrid layer and as taught by Adachi.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196) and Lee (US 2007/0082261).
Regarding claim 10, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: a front side of the base film comprises a front coating region and a front blank region, and an areal ratio between the front coating region and the front blank region is (1 to 3): 1; and a reverse side of the base film comprises a reverse coating region and a reverse blank region, and an areal ratio between the reverse coating region and the reverse blank region is (0.5 to 1): 1, and the front coating region and the reverse coating region are surface-coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Lee teaches that a coating (Fig. 1A item 40,40’) on a separator base layer (Fig. 1A item 30,30’) may be configured to coat an area of 50% or less of the base layer for the benefit of facilitating ion conductivity (paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Wood such that the organic-inorganic hybrid layer coats 50% or less of the base film for the benefit of improving ionic conductivity as taught by Lee. The claimed ranges for the areal ratio of the front and reverse coating regions each include 50% coverage; therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious.
Claims 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196), Lee (US 2007/0082261) and Roumi (US 2013/0224632).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the cited art remains as applied to claim 10 or 1, respectively [claim 1 includes the majority of the features of independent claim 19]. Wood does not appear to teach wherein: on a plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the base film, a projection of the front blank region and a projection of the reverse coating region overlap with each other, and a projection of the reverse blank region and a projection of the front coating region overlap with each other; and the front coating region and the reverse coating region are surface-coated with the organic-inorganic hybrid layer.
In the battery art, Roumi teaches a separator comprising two mechanically supporting coating layers disposed on an inner membrane (Fig. 3, paragraph [0206]). Roumi further teaches that the coating layers may include coating regions and blank regions [apertures] therein, such that blank regions of one layer overlap with the coating region of the opposite layer (Fig. 1). Roumi further teaches that such a structure provides various advantages such as excellent ion transport properties, dendrite control, and structural favorability (abstract).
It would have been obvious to configure the separator such that the claimed coating-blank overlap arrangement is present for the benefit of providing desirable properties such as excellent ion transport properties, dendrite control, and/or structural favorability as taught by Roumi.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196), Xiao (US 2021/0194095), Yeh (USP 11,575,180) and Ryu (USP 10,056,589).
Regarding claim 13, The cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wood further teaches that the inventive separators possess “low shrinkage” (paragraph [0002]), but is silent as to characterizing the shrinkage of the separator relative to a base film alone, and therefore does not teach wherein a thermal shrinkage rate of the separator is 70% to 75% lower than a thermal shrinkage rate of the base film.
In the battery art:
Xiao teaches that a desirable separator may be configured to have 30 to 75% lower high temperature shrinkage compared to a purely polymeric membrane (paragraph [0022]);
Yeh teaches a separator provided with a heat resistant layer may have a heat shrinkage of 15%, whereas a Comparative separator without a heat resistant layer may have a heat shrinkage of >50% (Table 1), noting that (50-15)/50 = 70%;
Ryu teaches a composite separator which has a thermal shrinkage value of 3 compared to an uncoated fabric separator having a thermal shrinkage value of 10, noting that (10-3)-3 = 70%.
Claim 12 is found to be obvious over the cited art because the claim merely sets forth a known desirable goal (thermal shrinkage reduced compared to an uncoated separator to a particular desirable range), without specifying any specific structure not taught by the cited art which facilitates the known desirable property, and the prior art demonstrates that the claimed property has been achieved using comparable techniques including coating a base membrane with an inorganic layer. Absent any evidence that the Wood separator i) would not possess the claimed property, and ii) could not be modified to yield the claimed property in view of the cited secondary references, the claimed invention is found to be obvious.
Claims 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 2021/0005862), Fan (US 2016/0149196) and Cho (US 2021/0305658).
Regarding claim 15-17, The cited art remains as applied to claim 14. Wood teaches the separator as a subcomponent of a lithium-ion battery, but does not expressly teach the battery as a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery.
In the battery art, Cho teaches that a lithium battery may be a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0116]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the lithium-ion battery of Wood as a subcomponent of an electrical device, which comprises a battery pack, which comprises a battery module, which comprises the lithium-ion battery, for the benefit of making practical use of the battery as taught by Cho.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Kim (US 2015/0004467) partially coated separator;
Okuno (US 2015/0004464) separator comprising first and second particles of different sizes;
Pan (USP 9698399) separator comprising particles of different shapes and sizes.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723