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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 5 November 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11 August 2025. Claims 2 and 6 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3–5, and 7–12 are pending in the application.
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, 7, and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/060022 A1; US 2021/0265703 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) herein referred to as Kim ‘022, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0112506 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘506, as evidenced by Kim (KR 2015/0126129 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘129.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim ‘022 discloses a pouch type secondary battery (see secondary battery, [0112], Claim 26) comprising:
a jelly roll (see electrode assembly, [0066]) in which a plurality of unit cells (see monocells 100 and 101, [0065], FIG. 3a) including a structure of a separator (see separator 20, [0065], FIG. 3a) interposed between a positive electrode (see positive electrode 10, [0065], FIG. 3a) and a negative electrode (see negative electrode 20, [0065], FIG. 3a) are laminated ([0065]); and
an outer layer separator (see separator expansion part 31, [0065]–[0068], FIG. 3a),
wherein the battery is in a form in which the unit cell (100 and lowermost 101) positioned in an outermost layer of the jelly roll is surrounded by the outer layer separator (31) ([0066]–[0068]; note that although this is not explicitly shown in FIG. 3a, [0066] discloses that the outer layer separator (31) surrounds the unit cell (100), and [0068] discloses that the outer layer separator (31) can cover the entire positive electrode (10) disposed at the uppermost layer),
wherein the outer layer separator (31) is formed by a separator in any unit cell (100) of the laminated unit cells (100 and 101) being extended ([0065]–[0068], FIG. 3a).
Kim ‘022 does not disclose that the outer layer separator is including a carbon dioxide adsorbent, wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent includes an amine group.
Kim ‘506 teaches a pouch type secondary battery (see lithium-sulfur battery, [0077]) comprising: a jelly roll (see stack-and-fold type electrode assembly, [0102]) in which a plurality of unit cells including a structure of a separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0077], [0102]) are laminated; and a separator ([0034]) including an amine-based polymer which can act as a carbon dioxide adsorbent ([0034]–[0038]). It is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that generation of carbon dioxide can increase the internal pressure a battery and cause explosion, as evidenced by Kim ‘129 ([0005]).
Kim ‘022 and Kim ‘506 are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pouch type secondary battery of Kim ‘022 such that the outer layer separator has the composition of the separator of Kim ‘506 which includes a carbon dioxide adsorbent that includes an amine group, for the purpose of adsorbing carbon dioxide in order to prevent an increased internal pressure in the battery and explosion.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1. Modified Kim ‘022 further discloses wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent includes polyethyleneimine (PEI) (Kim ‘506 [0038]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1. Kim ‘022 further discloses wherein all of the unit cells include a mono-cell structure (see monocells 100 and 101, [0065]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1. Kim ‘022 further discloses a battery module (see secondary battery module, [0112]) comprising the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1 as a unit battery.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the battery module of Claim 11. Kim ‘022 further discloses a device (see mobile device, [0003]) comprising the battery module of Claim 11 as a power source.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/060022 A1; US 2021/0265703 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) herein referred to as Kim ‘022, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0112506 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘506, as evidenced by Kim (KR 2015/0126129 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘129, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2003/0175593 A1) herein referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent is impregnated in pores of the outer layer separator.
Chen teaches a secondary battery (see lead-acid batteries, [0039]) comprising a separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0040], FIG. 3 and 8). Chen further teaches ([0048], FIG. 7–8) a method for impregnation of a polymer into a porous separator comprising immersion of the porous separator into a polymer solution followed by drying. Chen teaches ([0048]) that ‘impregnation’ results in a greater amount of polymer distributed in the porous separator.
Chen is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of separators for secondary batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pouch type secondary battery of modified Kim ‘022 such that the carbon dioxide adsorbent (which, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, is an amine-based polymer) is impregnated in pores of the outer layer separator (note that the outer layer separator of modified Kim ‘022 comprises a porous substrate, i.e. porous separator (Kim ‘506 [0034])) via the method of Chen, for the purpose of distributing a greater amount of the carbon dioxide adsorbent in the pores of the separator.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/060022 A1; US 2021/0265703 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) herein referred to as Kim ‘022, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0112506 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘506, as evidenced by Kim (KR 2015/0126129 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘129, further in view of Chen et al. (US 2003/0175593 A1) herein referred to as Chen, as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Shishida et al. (US 2017/0125765 A1) herein referred to as Shishida.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the pores of the outer layer separator have an average size of 1 to 10 Å.
Shishida teaches a secondary battery (see cylindrical lithium-ion battery, [0023], FIG. 1) comprising a structure of a separator interposed between a positive electrode and negative electrode, and ([0026]) that the separator includes a separation functional layer which is a low-porosity, dense layer with a small pore size. Shishida teaches ([0003], [0054], [0055]) wherein when the pores of the separator functional layer have an average size of 0.6 nm to 2 nm, i.e. 6 to 20 Å, the pores are larger than monovalent lithium ions but smaller than solvated polyvalent metal ions, such that the solvated polyvalent metal ions are prevented from moving from the negative electrode to the positive electrode and causing poor battery performance and safety. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Shishida is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the average pore size of the outer layer separator with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a an outer layer separator in which the pores are larger than monovalent lithium ions but smaller than solvated polyvalent metal ions, such that the solvated polyvalent metal ions are prevented from moving from the negative electrode to the positive electrode and causing poor battery performance and safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/060022 A1; US 2021/0265703 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) herein referred to as Kim ‘022, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0112506 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘506, as evidenced by and further in view of Kim (KR 2015/0126129 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘129, as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent is 20 to 80 wt% with respect to the mass of the outer layer separator.
Kim ‘129 teaches a pouch type secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0029], [0052]) comprising a structure of a separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0029]); and a carbon dioxide adsorbent (see adsorbent material, [0012]) in an inner sealant layer of the battery case. Kim ‘129 teaches ([0019]) that if the content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent is too low, the adsorption properties cannot be sufficiently exhibited, while if the content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent is too high, the content of other components which contribute to e.g. mechanical properties may be too low. Note that Kim ‘129 is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting carbon dioxide adsorption and the content of other components which contribute to e.g. mechanical properties, as taught by Kim ‘129, thus making the content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pouch type secondary battery of modified Kim ‘022 such that a content of the carbon dioxide adsorbent is 20 to 80 wt% with respect to the mass of the outer layer separator via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of carbon dioxide adsorption and content of other components which contribute to e.g. mechanical properties.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/060022 A1; US 2021/0265703 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) herein referred to as Kim ‘022, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2018/0112506 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘506, as evidenced by Kim (KR 2015/0126129 A; see attached machine translation) herein referred to as Kim ‘129, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0126820 A) herein referred to as Kim ‘820.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 1. Modified Kim ‘022 further discloses wherein the outer layer separator includes a porous substrate (Kim ‘506 [0034]); and a coating layer (see lithium polysulfide adsorption film, Kim ‘506 [0034]) which is formed on the porous substrate and includes a binder (see epoxy resin, Kim ‘506 [0034], [0042]).
Modified Kim ‘022 does not disclose wherein the coating layer includes inorganic particles, wherein the binder is binding the inorganic particles.
Kim ‘820 teaches a pouch type secondary battery (see pouch-type lithium secondary battery, [0069]) comprising: a jelly roll in which a plurality of unit cells including a structure of a separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode are laminated ([0070]); and a separator (see separator, [0016]) including a carbon dioxide adsorbent (see polyethylene imine, [0020]–[0021]). Kim ‘820 further teaches wherein the outer layer separator includes a porous substrate ([0016]); and a coating layer ([0016]) which is formed on the porous substrate and includes a binder and inorganic particles ([0020]). Kim ‘820 teaches ([0052]) that including inorganic particles in the coating layer improves the heat resistance of the separator, preventing rapid shrinking and deforming due to a rise in temperature.
Kim ‘820 is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of the pouch type secondary battery of modified Kim ‘022 such that it contains the inorganic particles as taught by Kim ‘820 (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the binder present in the coating layer of modified Kim ‘022 will necessarily bind the inorganic particles), for the purpose of improving the heat resistance of the separator, preventing rapid shrinking and deforming due to a rise in temperature.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim ‘022 discloses the pouch type secondary battery of Claim 8. Modified Kim ‘022 further discloses wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent is combined with the binder (Kim ‘506 [0034]–[0036] teaches that the carbon dioxide adsorbent and binder are both present in the coating layer, and therefore are necessarily combined; Kim ‘506 [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 5 November 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 10–12 on the basis of the reference Kim ‘022 in view of Kim ‘506 and as evidenced by Kim ‘129 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 13–14 of Remarks that the separator of Kim ‘506 is a separator for a lithium-sulfur battery for adsorbing lithium polysulfide, is entirely different in purpose from the present application, and that Kim ‘506 neither recognizes nor discloses the components of the present invention: (3) the battery is in a form in which the unit cell positioned in an outermost layer of the jelly roll is surrounded by the outer layer separator and (4) the outer layer separator is formed by a separator in any unit cell of the laminated unit cells being extended. This argument is not persuasive. Kim ‘506 teaches a separator ([0034]) including an amine-based polymer which can act as a carbon dioxide adsorbent ([0034]–[0038]), and specifically notes that the amine-based polymer is known as a functional adsorbent for carbon dioxide capture ([0035]); additionally, Kim ‘506 is in the same field of the present invention, i.e. secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium, and therefore is considered analogous. Furthermore, it is noted that Kim ‘506 is used as a teaching reference, and therefore it is not necessary that it contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, such as components (3) and (4) above. Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a separator including an amine-based polymer which can act as a carbon dioxide adsorbent, and in combination with the other applied references, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant argues on p. 13–15 of Remarks that Kim ‘129 relates to a secondary battery case in which an “inner sealant layer” including a carbon dioxide adsorbent is laminated together with an outer coating layer and a barrier layer in order to adsorb carbon dioxide generated in an abnormal operating condition, and that this technical feature necessarily requires that an additional layer for carbon dioxide adsorption be laminated in the battery case, which would cause the problem of volume/weight increase that the present invention seeks to solve. Applicant further argues that Kim ‘129 does not disclose any application of an adsorbent to a separator, and therefore does not recognize nor disclose the components of the present invention: (2) an outer layer separator including a carbon dioxide adsorbent, wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent includes an amine group, and (3) and (4) above. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim ‘129 is relied upon only as evidence that it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that generation of carbon dioxide can increase the internal pressure of a battery and cause explosion (Kim ‘129 [0005]), and is not relied upon for any of the technical features described above. This evidence provides the motivation, i.e. avoiding the negative effects of internal pressure increase and explosion caused by carbon dioxide, for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pouch type secondary battery of Kim ‘022 such that the outer layer separator has the composition of the separator of Kim ‘506 which includes a carbon dioxide adsorbent that includes an amine group. Furthermore, it is noted that Kim ‘129 is used as an evidentiary reference, and therefore it is not necessary that it contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, such as components (2), (3), and (4) above. Rather, this reference provides evidence, namely the fact that it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that generation of carbon dioxide can increase the internal pressure of a battery and cause explosion, and thus provides motivation for the obviousness rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 15 of Remarks that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Kim ‘022 and Kim ‘056 because neither of these references disclose or suggest the effects of significantly reduced thickness increase after charge and discharge, and further that none of the recited references disclose “adsorbing carbon dioxide to prevent in increased internal pressure in the battery and explosion” as alleged by the Examiner. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, Kim ‘129 ([0005]) does indeed disclose that generation of carbon dioxide can increase the internal pressure of a battery and cause explosion, specifically stating “In addition, when a lithium secondary battery is used and stored for a long time or at a high temperature, the electrolyte decomposes or a gas such as carbon dioxide is generated as a result of a reaction between the electrolyte and the electrode, causing the internal pressure of the battery to increase, resulting in a swelling phenomenon, and the lithium secondary battery may explode when the pressure exceeds a certain level. This risk of fire/explosion is the most fatal drawback of lithium secondary batteries”, and thus provides the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim ‘022 and Kim ‘506, i.e. to modify the pouch type secondary battery of Kim ‘022 such that the outer layer separator has the composition of the separator of Kim ‘506 which includes a carbon dioxide adsorbent that includes an amine group. Furthermore, it is noted that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. (MPEP 2144.IV) See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus in the instant case, because a motivation has already been provided for the modification of Kim ‘022 with Kim ‘506 as described above, it is not necessary that the cited references disclose or suggest the specific motivation described by the Applicant, i.e. the effect of reduced thickness increase after charge and discharge.
Applicant argues on p. 15–16 of Remarks that the superior effects of the present invention are unexpected from the teachings of the prior art, because with reference to Table 1 of the Instant Specification, Example 1 corresponds to the present invention and displays only a 20% increase in thickness after charge and discharge, while in contrast, Comparative Example 1 corresponds to Kim ‘022 and exhibits a significant increase in thickness up to 110% after charge and discharge. This argument is not persuasive. The correspondence of Comparative Example 1 to Kim ‘022 is not relevant in the instant case, as the teachings of the prior art set forth above go beyond the simple disclosure of Kim ‘022 and instead are embodied by the teachings of Kim ‘022 modified by the additional references included in this Office Action as described in the above rejection. Finally, as an additional point in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a certain thickness increase after charge and discharge) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725